https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/222

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **SCCOMM NO. E97551 OF 2025** **CAROLINE MWANGI...…………………......................................CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **AMOS KING’ORI……………...…...…………….…….…….....RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the undated statement of claim seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 340,000/= plus costs and interests on the basis that she financed the respondent with Kshs. 1,400,000/= for petroleum. That a few days later, the respondent returned 6,000 litres valued at Kshs. 840,000/= and paid Kshs. 220,000/= leaving a balance of Kshs. 340,000/=. 2. The respondent filed the response and counter claim dated 15/8/2025 denying the claim. His case was that he operated the business known as Gikam Traders and had received a Local Purchase Order from Rhombus Concrete Limited for the supply of 10,000 litres of diesel. That the claimant supplied the fuel through his business arrangement and that the fuel was later found to be adulterated, resulting in machinery breakdowns at Rhombus Concrete Limited. He further contended that 6,000 litres of the fuel were returned and that Rhombus Concrete Limited withheld payment pending resolution of the dispute. 3. In response, the claimant filed the reply dated 9/3/2026 and maintained her case. 4. The claim proceeded under **Section 30 of the Small Claims Act** and the claimant filed submissions dated 20/5/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 23/4/2026. I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings and documents on record. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven the claim as against the respondent. 5. The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities. See the court of Appeal in **Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR**.It is also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in ***Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.*** 6. I have considered the court record and I do note on the outset that there is a disconnect between the claim as framed and the evidence tendered. 7. The claimant presented the dispute as a straightforward claim for money allegedly advanced to the respondent and not refunded. However, the documentary evidence from both parties reveals that the underlying transaction concerned the supply of 10,000 litres of diesel to Rhombus Concrete Limited pursuant to a Local Purchase Order. 8. The documents further reveal that after delivery of the fuel, allegations arose that the fuel supplied was adulterated and had caused damage to machinery belonging to Rhombus Concrete Limited. Correspondence from Rhombus Concrete Limited expressly stated that payment would be withheld pending resolution of the dispute and consideration of losses allegedly occasioned by the fuel supplied. 9. It is also noteworthy that the primary transaction was not between the parties in their personal capacities. The Local Purchase Order, delivery notes, correspondence, and demand letters all relate to dealings between Gikam Traders Ltd and Rhombus Concrete Limited, both being corporate entities distinct from the claimant and the respondent personally. 10. I do also note that the documentation placed before the court demonstrated a commercial dispute arising from an alleged supply of adulterated fuel and the consequent withholding of payment by a purchaser. The issues raised include the quality of fuel supplied, liability for damage allegedly occasioned to machinery, entitlement to payment for fuel delivered, and potential contractual obligations between the corporate entities involved. 11. As such, this court is not persuaded that the claim before it is a simple liquidated demand for money held by the respondent on behalf of the claimant. I do find that the determination of the claim would inevitably require the court to interrogate the broader dispute concerning the alleged adulteration of fuel, the rights and obligations of the companies involved, and possible claims and counterclaims arising therefrom. 12. I do also note that neither Rhombus Concrete Limited nor Gikam Traders Ltd are parties to these proceedings, yet the evidence shows that they were central participants in the impugned transaction. 13. Consequently, on the basis of the evidence before court, I find that the claim points to an unresolved commercial dispute relating to the supply of fuel between corporate entities. This court is not the proper forum to determine the underlying dispute between the parties. As such, the claim and counter-claim are both struck out without orders as to costs, the same shall not prejudice either party’s right to prosecute their claims in the proper forums. 14. Each party shall bear their own costs. **It is so decreed.** **DATED** and **DELIVERED** via **CTS** at **NAIROBI** this 14TH Day of August 2026 **** **HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH** **RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR**