Mbugua v Mulewa (Commercial Case E238COMM of 2026) [2026] SCC 144 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

Mbugua v Mulewa (Commercial Case E238COMM of 2026) [2026] SCC 144 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 144 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E238COMM of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM June 30, 2026 Between Rosaline Wanjiku Mbugua Claimant and Peter Mulewa Respondent Judgment 1.It is an agreed fact by the parties as per their pleadings that on or about the 1st day of January 2023, the Claimant advanced various sums of money to the Respondent at his request. The total sum advanced amounted to Kshs. 239,400/- and it was agreed between that the said amount would attract interest at the rate of 30% per annum. 2.Further, it is not in dispute that by 21st June 2025, the loan interest accrued to Ksh 177,392/- thereby making the total loaned amount plus interest Ksh. 416,792/-. 3.The Claimant states that despite repeated promises to repay and despite numerous demands made by the Claimant, the Respondent has failed, neglected and/or refused to settle the outstanding debt. Further, that the Respondent cannot be permitted to retain the Claimant's money indefinitely while at the same time refusing to honour his repayment obligations. The Claimant relied on MPESA transaction records to support her claim. 4.On his part, the Respondent admits the debt but counterclaims against the Claimant Kshs. 391,608/- being the excess of the money repaid to the Claimant. It is the Respondent’s position that he has settled the debt in full and has made several payments all amounting to Kshs. 808,400/- to the Claimant and her daughter. The Respondent has filed MPESA transaction records to 7evidence their stance. 5.The matter proceeded for hearing on 9th June 2026 with both parties giving their evidence. Upon consideration of the pleadings, documents in support of the respective cases as well as the oral testimony by the parties, three issues stand out for determination;a.Whether the Respondent is in default of the loanb.Whether the Claimant is entitled to any reliefsc.Whether the Counterclaim is merited and what is the consequence thereof. Whether the Respondent is in Default of the Loan 6.The Claimant has relied on two MPESA statement as evidence in support of her case. The first statement being for the Claimant and the other for her daughter Beatrice Mbugua. Per the MPESA statements, the Respondent has between 28th March 2023 to 25th January 2025 sent a total of Kshs. 808,400/- to the Claimant and her daughter Beatrice. By her own documents the Claimant is bound to this position which confirms that the Respondent has repaid the loaned amount in full and in excess. This court thus finds that the Respondent is not in default. Whether the Claimant is Entitled to any Reliefs 7.It is trite law that parties are bound by their own pleadings and that he who alleges must prove. In the instant case, the evidence filed by the Claimant has proven that the Respondent is not indebted to the Claimant. As such, the Claimant is not entitled to any Reliefs having failed to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. The claim is thus dismissed with no orders as to costs. Whether the Counterclaim is Merited and what is the Consequence Thereof. 8.Turning to the counterclaim, the Respondent equally filed MPESA transaction records for the period 1st January 2023 to 31st July 2025. Therein, the court has been able to account for Kshs. 808,400/- as being paid out to the Claimant and her daughter Beatrice Mbugua. The court finds the argument by the Claimant that Beatrice Mbugua was not party to the agreement between the Claimant and Respondent disingenuous as, the Claimant herself has relied on the MPESA statement of Beatrice Mbugua as part of her pleadings. In any case, the Respondent is not asserting that the said Beatrice was party to the loan agreement simply that loan repayments were made through her a fact which has been corroborated by the Claimants own evidence as stated earlier. It was therefore not necessary for the Respondent in the Counterclaim to include the said Beatrice as a party. The Counterclaim against the 2nd Respondent is thus dismissed without costs on account of being prejudicial to the said party as they are not a proper party to the Claim. 9.Ultimately, the Respondent’s counterclaim succeeds and judgment is entered in favor of the Respondent as against the Claimant, for Kshs. 391,608/- plus costs and interest from date of filing. The Claim dated stands dismissed. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……30TH…. DAY OF……JUNE……2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;……Mr. Musa h/b for Gioche….…for Claimant;……Mr. Frank Calvin….. for Respondent C/A Esther