https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/124

Oketch v Oketch (Commercial Case E1235 of 2025) [2026] SCC 124 (KLR) (4 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 124 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E1235 of 2025 TN Mwangeka, RM May 4, 2026 Between Levis Oketch Claimant and Jared Oketch Respondent Judgment 1.This judgment relates to a Statement of Claim dated 3rd November 2025 seeking judgment in the sum of Kshs. 76,000/- arising out of a loan advanced by the Claimant to the Respondent for him to set up a music project. It was agreed that the Respondent would repay the money by 21st September 2025 but the same remains outstanding hence the instant suit. 2.On his part, the Respondent denies owing the Claimant any money and states that the two were in a joint venture business agreement where each party had their respective duties and it was the Claimant’s duty to contribute financially as well as attend the said event while the Respondent was responsible for logistics among other duties. 3.The court has considered the pleadings as well as the submissions filed by the Respondent, as at the time of writing this judgment the Claimant had not filed its submissions. This court finds that the Claimant has proved via MPESA transaction details that Kshs. 74,400/- and not Kshs. 76,000/- as claimed was sent to the Respondent. The lack of a certificate of electronic evidence does not render the said MPESA statement inadmissible as under Section 3(3)(d) and 32 of the Small Claims Court Act the simplest of procedures is to be adopted and the rules of evidence are more relaxed. 4.The Respondent claims that the parties herein were in a joint venture and has filed petty cash vouchers as evidence of his payment to various vendors for the facilitation of the musical event. The Respondent further states that the Claimant failed to show up at the event thereby leaving him alone to handle all the logistics of the day which resulted in financial loss. Additionally, the Respondent states that the Claimant has not proved the existence of a loan agreement and that the repayment date of 21st September 2025 cannot be substantiated. 5.The law remains that he who alleges must prove. The Respondent thus had the duty to prove the existence of the joint venture business through cogent evidence not just merely stating the same. There must be evidence to show that the parties agreed as was decided in Ochiel v Okoth [2026] KEHC 106 (KLR). 6.This evidence could have taken the nature of messages, emails, or letters demonstrating negotiation, performance, and mutual agreement. The petty cash vouchers alone are not sufficient proof as they are not in the joint names of the parties neither do they show that the Respondent was acting on behalf of the joint venture. Additionally, whether a business operated at a loss or not is usually subject to documentary evidence and none has been provided. There are also no particulars of the said event adduced, no date, venue, poster or flyer to prove the same. 7.In the end, I find that the Claimant has proved its case on a balance of probabilities and enter judgment in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 74,400/- plus interest at court rates from date of filling. The Claimant is additionally awarded Kshs. 5,000/- as costs of the suit. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE 4th DAY OF MAY 2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;…N/A….for Claimant;..Mr. Arunga… for RespondentC/A Sabina