Olonyi v Khajonga (Civil Appeal E147 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 5939 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

Olonyi v Khajonga (Civil Appeal E147 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 5939 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

The trial court erred in law by treating the absence of a written loan agreement as fatal and failing to properly apply the burden and standard of proof. Oral contracts are enforceable if proved, and the appellant discharged her evidential burden through consistent testimony and banking records. The respondent’s explanation was implausible and unsupported.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5939 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Maureen Olonyi; Respondent: Dosila Khajonga
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E147 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Burden of Proof, Loan Agreements, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Contract Law Evidence Law Oral Contracts Burden of Proof Loan Agreements Standard of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Olonyi

Appellant

Dosila Khajonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a written loan agreement was fatal to the appellant’s claim
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof under Sections 107–109 of the Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether the trial court properly applied principles relating to oral contracts and proof thereof

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erred in law by treating the absence of a written loan agreement as fatal and failing to properly apply the burden and standard of proof. Oral contracts are enforceable if proved, and the appellant discharged her evidential burden through consistent testimony and banking records. The respondent’s explanation was implausible and unsupported.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the lower court set aside
  • Judgment entered in favour of the appellant for Kshs 200,000