Mbaka v Stanley (Commercial Case E309 of 2026) [2026] SCC 109 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment)

Mbaka v Stanley (Commercial Case E309 of 2026) [2026] SCC 109 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 109 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E309 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM July 3, 2026 Between Benson Murithi Mbaka Claimant and Joshua Mutethia Stanley Respondent Judgment 1.It is an agreed fact by the parties as per their pleadings that the Respondent received Kshs. 614,515/- from the Claimant as a loan. Per the Statement of Claim dated 8th April 2026 the Claimant seeks judgment for a total of Kshs. 1,159,515/- being the principal sum of Kshs. 614,515/- and bank charges of Kshs. 545,000/-. By instituting this claim however, the Claimant has waived all sums in excess of one million Kenya Shillings, in line with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 2.As per the Claimant, the Respondent agreed to refund the principal sum plus bank charges. The Respondent on his part denies the claim stating that he has already repaid Kshs. 204,323/- and that he never agreed to nor was he aware of the alleged bank charges. In support of his case, the Respondent filed screenshot messages of MPESA transactions to the Claimant for diverse dates between 4th September 2025 to 25th February 2026. 3.Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the court has been able to establish that indeed the Respondent has been making payments to the Claimant as per the filed MPESA transaction messages. The court has been able to account for Kshs. 199,523 as the total amount paid. The balance therefore stands at Kshs. 414,992/-. 4.As regards the bank charges, the Claimant has filed bank statements which in this courts view do not substantiate the claim as all that can be gotten from the said statements is repeated card purchases at Tosha Petroleum Bombolulu and other merchants and Bank to Card transfers for unidentified purposes. The bank statements alone are not sufficient evidence of the Respondent's liability to settle bank charges. Additionally, the commitment letter dated 18th April 2025 filed by the Claimant does not support the claim for bank charges as there is no evidence of the same being repayable by the Respondent from the said letter. 5.The Respondent pleaded to have written the commitment letter under duress but failed to lead any evidence of duress to the satisfaction of the court such as steps taken after the fact to avoid the said agreement. I rely on the court’s finding in Ruto v Cherono (Civil Appeal E200 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10947 (KLR) (20 September 2024) (Judgment) on what constitutes proof of duress. The court will thus uphold the commitment letter dated 18th April 2025 as a valid acknowledgment of debt binding upon the Respondent. 6.Based on the evidence on record therefore, the Claimant has proved its case on a balance of probabilities aganist the Respondent and judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 414,992/- together with interest and costs of the suit from the date herein. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE…3RD…. DAY OF……JULY……2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;…Mr. Atiang.…for Claimant;…Mr. Kebaso.. for RespondentC/A Esther