https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/203

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF KENYA AT UASIN GISHU COUNTY COURT NAME: ELDORET SMALL CLAIMS COURT** **CASE NUMBER: SCCCOMM/E4753/2025** **BENTER ANYANGO MIRUWE VS CAVIN OMONDI OGUK** **JUDGMENT** 1. Before this Court for determination is a Statement of Claim dated 21st August, 2025, in which the claimant seeks: a) Principal amount of ksh. 800,000/- b) Cost for demand letter ksh 80,000/- c) Costs of the suit; and Interest. 1. The claimant's case, as pleaded in the Statement of Claim, is that on or about April, 2024, she entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of a motor vehicle whereby the claimant agreed to pay a sum of ksh 800,000/- being the purchase price. That despite fulfilling her obligation under the agreement, the respondent failed, refused and /or neglected to deliver the motor vehicle to her as agreed. That on 21st May, 2025 she instructed her advocated to demand for the same. 2. The respondent filed a Response dated 23rd October, 2025 denying the claim and sought to have the claim dismissed with cost. The matter proceeded by way of viva voce evidence. The claimant testified in support of his case without calling any additional witnesses. The respondent was stood down during examination in chief to enable him file and serve clear copies of the bank statement. 3. The claimant testified and adopted her statement dated 21st August, 2025, as her evidence in chief. She also produced documents on her list of documents of the same date as C exhibit 1-2. She testified that the respondent was her boyfriend at the time of the transaction, she then took a loan at I&M bank and requested the respondent to buy for her a car. That she wanted to purchase a Toyota Mark X but the same was never purchased. The monies were sent to the respondent on different times. 1st instalment was sent on 6th April, 2024 ksh 145,000/-, 2nd instalment sent on 11th April, 2024 ksh 85,000/-, 3rd installment was sent on 11th April, 2024, she sent ksh 99,000/- the last instalment was sent on 11th April, 2024 she sent ksh 472,000/-. The money was sent from the claimant’s I&M bank to the respondent’s I&M bank number 01704305926150. It was the witness’s testimony that the account number captured in the statements filed by the respondent is the same one she used to send the money. 4. The claimant further reiterated that the money was not supposed to go to her mother as alleged by the respondent, that he used to send her money to her number which she registered with her mother’s identification card when she completed form four and she is the one still using the said line. She concluded by stating that she had taken a loan to buy the said car which was never purchased by the respondent. 5. On cross examination, the witness stated that the respondent was her boyfriend and they have a son together. She confirmed that during the pendency of their relationship they used to send each other money. It was her testimony that the money being claimed herein is not part of what they used to send each other. She further reiterated that the money was sent to the respondent in April, 2024 when their relationship was still good. 6. She confirmed that they did not have any sale agreement for the vehicle, the communication between them was verbal and could not confirm the colour of the vehicle to be purchased by the respondent. The witness further confirmed that she did not report the respondent for obtaining for false presence. It was her evidence that the total amount sent was ksh 730,771.45/-. It was her testimony that she did not pay any insurance and could not confirm the value of a Toyota mark x but the money sent was not for the respondent’s use but for the car. 7. In re- examination the witness stated her concern is about the money she sent to the respondent for purchase of the vehicle since the agreement was verbal. She confirmed that she is not a valuer to confirm the value of the vehicle that was to be purchased. It was her testimony that the total amount sent was more that ksh 800,000/- The claimant closed its case at this point. 8. The respondent testified, adopted his statement dated 28th February, 2026 as evidence in chief produced documents in his list of documents dated 3rd October, 2025, ID and mpesa statement, bank statements from I &M bank and WhatsApp screenshots as R exhibit 1-4. The witness was however stood down on the application by the claimant’s counsel that the bank statements were not eligible, the respondent’s counsel undertook to procure, file and serve clearer copies which was not done despite being given an opportunity on two different occasions being on 29th June, 2026 and 16th July, 2026 and consequently, the respondent’s case was closed as this point and parties were directed to file submissions which was only done by the claimant. 9. Having carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence on record and submissions filed, the Court is of the view that the following issue arise for determination: *a) Whether the claimant paid ksh 800,000/- to the respondent for purchase of the motor vehicle.* 1. On the evidence before the Court, the claimant has satisfactorily demonstrated that substantial sums of money were transferred to the respondent’s I&M Bank account. The bank statement produced by the claimant shows transfers of Kshs. 145,000/- on 6th April 2024, Kshs. 85,000/- and Kshs. 99,000/- on 10th April 2024, and Kshs. 472,000/- on 11th April 2024, making a total of Kshs. 801,000/-. The respondent did not dispute the ownership of the account into which the funds were transferred. 2. The claimant's evidence, however, must be considered in its entirety. She testified that the parties were in a relationship and that she requested the respondent to purchase a Toyota Mark X for her. She further stated that she obtained a loan from I&M Bank for that purpose and thereafter remitted the funds to the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, denied that the money was given to him for the purchase of a motor vehicle and stated that the funds received were subsequently channeled to the claimant's mother. 3. The Court notes that there was no written agreement between the parties setting out the terms of the alleged purchase. The claimant candidly admitted that their agreement was oral. She was also unable to give particulars such as the colour or specific details of the motor vehicle allegedly intended to be purchased. Further, the claimant did not produce evidence of the loan, an invoice, importation documents, a motor vehicle search, communication with a dealer, or any other contemporaneous document demonstrating that the funds were specifically earmarked for the purchase of a Toyota Mark X. That notwithstanding, the absence of a written agreement is not, in itself, fatal to the claimant's case where an oral agreement is otherwise proved by credible evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The Court must therefore consider whether, on a balance of probabilities, the explanation advanced by the claimant as to the purpose of the payments is more probable than that advanced by the respondent. 4. The respondent's explanation is that the money received from the claimant was channeled to one Pamela Raila, whose telephone number was registered in that name. However, the respondent did not sufficiently explain why the claimant would remit the sums in question to his bank account in the first place, nor did he produce cogent evidence demonstrating the purpose for which he received the money. His assertion that he does not engage in the business of importing or selling motor vehicles does not, without more, disprove the claimant's evidence that he had undertaken to purchase the vehicle on her behalf. The burden rested upon the respondent to prove his case against the claimant. 5. Of significance is the fact that the respondent's bank statements, which he sought to rely upon in explaining the movement of the funds, were admittedly unclear and were not subsequently replaced with legible copies despite the Court granting him two opportunities to do so. Consequently, the Court is unable to attach any meaningful evidential value to those documents. The WhatsApp screenshots produced by the respondent likewise do not, on the evidence before the Court, establish that the disputed funds constituted money advanced for another purpose or that the respondent had discharged his obligation in respect of the motor vehicle. 6. The Court is therefore satisfied that the claimant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she transferred Kshs. 801,000/- to the respondent in April 2024. However, there is an important discrepancy in the claimant's own evidence. In cross-examination, she stated that the total amount sent was Kshs. 730,771.45/-, while the bank statement relied upon by her demonstrates transfers totaling Kshs. 801,000/-. The Court must therefore base its determination on the documentary evidence properly produced rather than on an inconsistent oral figure. 7. Further, the claimant pleaded a principal sum of Kshs. 800,000/-. The Court cannot award more than what has been pleaded and proved merely because the documentary evidence shows a slightly higher aggregate amount, particularly where the claimant herself gave differing figures as to the total amount paid. In the circumstances, and having considered the evidence as a whole, I find that the claimant has proved her claim for Kshs. 800,000/- on a balance of probabilities. The respondent received the money but has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the same was received for a different lawful purpose or that the intended transaction was completed. 8. The claimant further sought for ksh 80,000 being the costs of the demand letter, i find no sufficient basis upon which to award this amount as a separate head, there is no any evidence in support of the same. The cost incidental to the demand letter is in the circumstances more appropriate considered as part of the costs of the claim herein. In the circumstance the same is denied. The claimant shall have cost of ksh 66,400/- plus interest. 9. Stay of 30 days is granted Judgment dated and delivered at Eldoret this 14th day of August 2026 M. E. ALIGULA- RM In the presence of C/A Mr. Lepatoiye