[2023] KEHC 20376 (KLR)
The High Court found that both parties agreed the respondent gave money to the appellant, but disagreed on whether it was a loan or payment for goods. The trial court, having heard and seen the witnesses, believed the respondent's version that the money was a loan. The appellant failed to provide any material to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 20376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tito M. Mambo; Respondent: Henry Acheha Tero
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E033 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Oral Contracts, Debt Recovery, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tito M. Mambo
Appellant
Henry Acheha Tero
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sum of Kshs. 300,000.00 given by the respondent to the appellant was a loan or payment for goods (bricks).
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in believing the respondent's version of events over the appellant's.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that both parties agreed the respondent gave money to the appellant, but disagreed on whether it was a loan or payment for goods. The trial court, having heard and seen the witnesses, believed the respondent's version that the money was a loan. The appellant failed to provide any material to persuade the appellate court that the trial court's conclusion was wrong or erroneous in principle. Therefore, the appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment in favour of the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The judgment of the trial court in Kakamega CMCCC No. 116 of 2018 is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Mambo v Tero (Civil Appeal E033 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 20376 (KLR) (21 July 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 20376 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Civil Appeal E033 of 2021
WM Musyoka, J
July 21, 2023
Between
Tito M. Mambo
Appellant
and
Henry Acheha Tero
Respondent
(Appeal from judgment and decree of Hon. Eric Malesi, Principal Magistrate, PM, in Kakamega CMCCC No. 116 of 2018, of 8th June 2021)
Judgment
1. The appellant had been sued by the respondent, at the primary court, for recovery of a debt of Kshs. 300, 000. 00, interest, a bank charge of Kshs. 16, 000. 00, and cost. The appellant filed a defence, denying the debt, and explaining that the respondent had bought bricks from him, for which he paid Kshs. 300, 000. 00, and took the bricks away.
2. A trial was conducted. Both sides presented witnesses. PW1, was the respondent. He testified to have had lent money to the appellant, which he, PW1, had to borrow from a Sacco. The appellant was to pay back with interest. He never repaid the loan. He denied buying bricks from the appellant for Kshs. 300, 000. 00. DW1, the appellant, conceded to receiving a sum of Kshs. 300, 000. 00 from the respondent, but said it was the price for bricks sold to the respondent. In the end, the trial court believed the version given by the respondent, and entered judgment in his favour.
3. The appellant was aggrieved, hence the appeal. 6 grounds are listed, around the issue as to whether the money was a loan or not.
4. Directions were given on 19th May 2022, for canvassing of the appeal, by way of written submissions. None of the parties had filed written submissions by 27th October 2022, when the matter was mentioned for allocation of a date for judgment.
5. The dispute was over an oral agreement involving money. The parties were in agreement that the respondent gave out money to the appellant, and the appellant received the money. The disagreement is over whether the money was given out as a loan, or in payment for goods and services. The trial court had the benefit of hearing and seeing the parties testify, and based on that believed the testimony of the respondent and his witness, as against that of the appellant and his witness, for reasons that are given in the judgment. The appellant has not presented any material before me, to persuade me that the trial court came to the wrong conclusion, or was wrong in principle.
6. I find no merit in the appeal herein, and I uphold the judgment of the trial court, in Kakamega CMCCC No. 116 of 2018, of 8th June 2021. The respondent shall have the costs of the appeal.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 21STDAY OFJULY 2023W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Erick Zalo, Court Assistant.AppearancesMr. Getanda, instructed by Onsando Getanda & Company, Advocates for the appellants.Mr. Shivega, instructed by Victor Shivega & Company, Advocates for the respondent.