https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/26

Njoroge v Maina (Commercial Case E99973 of 2025) [2026] SCC 26 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 26 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E99973 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM May 22, 2026 Between Martin Mutur Njoroge Claimant and Amos Mariga Maina Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit via the statement of claim dated 8/9/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for Kshs. 43,800/= on the basis that he supplied the respondent with window graphics worth Kshs. 43,800/= but the respondent declined the delivered material on grounds that it did not meet what he requested. That the material was now stranded and had no other type but for what was delivered. 2.The respondent filed his response dated 15/9/2025 and stated that he had ordered for one-sided signage material from a previous supplier for his clinic that could only allow one to see outside when inside the clinic, but a person outside the clinic could not see inside. That the first supplier delivered a two-way material allowing visibility from outside and he cancelled the order. That he then contacted the claimant for a similar one-way window graphic and the claimant assured him yet he similarly delivered a two-way window graphic and charged almost twice the amount charged by the 1st supplier. 3.That he thus cancelled the claimant’s order and sought another supplier who delivered to his specifications. That he was not liable to incur any costs incurred by the claimant as he had cancelled the order yet the claimant proceeded to print the materials without authority. 4.The claim proceeded under Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act. None of the parties filed their submissions. I have seen and considered the pleadings and evidence on record. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven its case as against the respondent. 5.The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities. See the Court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. 6.Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya places the burden of proof of a fact on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of such fact. 7.Though the respondent denied any contractual relationship with the claimant, it was clear that one existed whereby he had requested for delivery of one-way window graphics. The claimant maintained that there was no other type of window graphics. However, the respondent stated that he indeed sourced and found the materials as per his specifications. 8.I do note that the respondent did not file any documents in support of his case. However, Section 32 (4) of the Small Claims Court Act empowers this Court to seek, inquire and investigate at its own initiative. From this Court’s own inquiry, there are indeed one-way window films also known as privacy films. The window graphics could be printed or decorative films applied to glass that are indeed one-way vision, meaning they would only allow visibility from inside-out, but not outside-in. 9.The claimant pleaded that the respondent rejected the window graphics yet there were no other types. This has been found to be non-factual. The respondent was adamant that he did no authorize printing of the claimant’s materials once he presented two-way samples and instead procured the goods from another party. Though this is unsupported by any evidence, this Court is satisfied that such material exists. Though the respondent did not prove that he procured the goods from a different supplier, the claimant failed to discharge his burden of proof when he failed to prove that the goods delivered met the agreed specifications 10.From the above, I do find that the respondent rightfully rejected the claimant’s work as they did not meet the order or purpose, more so noting that the same had been ordered for the respondent’s clinic which required privacy. It is trite that goods delivered must correspond with what was ordered either by way of description, quality, or purpose. Under Sections 15 and 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, there is an implied condition that goods supplied must correspond with their description and be fit for the purpose for which they are supplied. A supplier who delivers goods that do not conform to the agreed specifications is in breach of contract, entitling the buyer to reject the goods or seek a refund 11.In Mashreq Bank PSC v Kuguru Food Complex Ltd [2019] eKLR, it was found that where goods supplied are not as agreed, the buyer is entitled to reject them, or seek damages. In the instant case, the respondent was entitled to reject the material as it did not fit the purpose despite the assurance given by the claimant. 12.Going by the above, I am not convinced that the claimant successfully proved his case as against the respondent. I do also note that though the claimant claimed for Kshs. 43,800/=, the quotation relied on was for Kshs. 69,600.00/=. The contradiction was not explained further weakening the claimant’s case. Further, though the claimant claimed that the materials were delivered and remained stranded, there was nothing to show that the respondent had accepted delivery or that he was using the said materials to his benefit. The claimant had the option to collect the rejected goods. The respondent was not liable to pay for work that he had cancelled neither was he obligated to accept delivery for goods that were not fit for the purpose that had been communicated to the claimant. 13.In the end, I find that the claimant failed to prove the claim on a balance of probabilities. The claim is found to lack merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 14.Each party shall bear his own costs.It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR