https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/218
The claimant failed to prove that the disputed sum remained outstanding or was payable to it. The agreement showed the debt arose from KPLC electricity charges, and the respondent proved payment to KPLC directly while the claimant led no evidence from KPLC showing any unpaid balance or reimbursement entitlement. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] SCC 218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: NANCHANG MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT GROUP KENYA; Respondent: STAN INTERIOR MILLER
- Court
- Small Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Commercial Case E11629 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Small Claims Court Civil Claim / Judgment After Hearing and Submissions
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Judges
- ["GW Kiamah"]
- Legal Topics
- Burden of Proof, Electricity Bill Payment Agreement, Whether Claimant Proved an Outstanding Debt, Payment Made Directly to Third Party, Costs and Release of Deposited Funds
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NANCHANG MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT GROUP KENYA
Claimant
STAN INTERIOR MILLER
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Civil Claim / Judgment After Hearing and Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant proved its claim on a balance of probabilities
- 2 Whether the respondent discharged the obligation under the agreement by paying KPLC directly
- 3 Whether the sum claimed remained outstanding or was payable to the claimant
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant failed to prove that the disputed sum remained outstanding or was payable to it. The agreement showed the debt arose from KPLC electricity charges, and the respondent proved payment to KPLC directly while the claimant led no evidence from KPLC showing any unpaid balance or reimbursement entitlement. The claim therefore failed on a balance of probabilities.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- The claim is dismissed as unmerited.
- Kshs. 100,000 deposited into the respondent’s Advocate-Client Account shall be released to the respondent forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **SCCOMM NO. E11629 OF 2025** **NANCHANG MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING** **DEVELOPMENT GROUP KENYA…….......................................CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **STAN INTERIOR MILLER…...…………....……….…….......RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 27/1/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 286,384/= plus costs and interests. It was on the basis that the parties entered into an agreement for payment of an accrued KPLC electricity bill relating to meter account number 114012099. That the respondent was to pay an initial deposit of Kshs. 50,000/= and thereafter clear the balance of Kshs. 286,384/= on or before 31/12/2024 but failed to. 2. The respondent opposed the claim and pleaded vide its application dated 8/8/2025 and various affidavits that the amount in question was not a debt payable to the Claimant but an electricity bill owed to Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd (KPLC) and the same had since been cleared leaving an overpayment of Kshs. 2,964/=. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Actand the claimant filed submissions dated 4/3/2026 whereas the respondents were dated 25/5/2026. 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. 4. 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.*** 5. I have considered the court record. The agreement dated 14/11/2024 expressly stated that the amount in question arose from an outstanding electricity bill accrued in relation to meter account number 114012099 which was registered in the claimant’s name. The agreement further provided that the respondent would clear the outstanding bill and provided that in default, a civil suit would be instituted. 6. I do note that the agreement did not state that the sum of Kshs. 286,384/= was to be paid to the claimant for its own benefit. From the record, the respondent produced a KPLC e-bill statement showing an overpayment of Kshs. 2,964/= as at February 2025. The respondent further produced MPESA records evidencing payments made to KPLC in February and April 2025 in respect of account number 114012099. 7. On the other hand, the claimant did not place before the Court any evidence from KPLC showing that the outstanding amount remained due or that the claimant had settled the bill on behalf of the respondent and was therefore entitled to reimbursement. 8. As already held, the Evidence Act lays the burden of proof upon the claimant to prove its claim. While the claimant proved the existence of the agreement, it did not prove that the disputed sum remains outstanding or that the amount is payable to it notwithstanding the payments made to KPLC. 9. In the circumstances, the respondent was able to establish that it discharged its obligation under the agreement by making payments directly to KPLC, the ultimate beneficiary of the outstanding electricity charges whereas the claimant failed to demonstrate any loss or liability presently recoverable from the respondent. 10. In the end, I am not convinced that the claimant proved the claim on a balance of probabilities. 11. The upshot is that the claim is found to be unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. The sum of Kshs. 100,000/= deposited into the respondent’s Advocate-Client Account pursuant to the orders of this court shall be released to the respondent forthwith. 13. The respondent is awarded costs of Kshs. 10,000/= payable within 30 days hereof, which period shall constitute the stay of execution. **It is so decreed.** **DATED** and **DELIVERED** via **CTS** at **NAIROBI** this 14TH Day of August 2026 **** **HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH** **RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR**