Reganne Logistics Ltd v Macharia (Commercial Case E346 of 2026) [2026] SCC 132 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment)

Reganne Logistics Ltd v Macharia (Commercial Case E346 of 2026) [2026] SCC 132 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 132 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E346 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM June 24, 2026 Between Reganne Logistics Ltd Claimant and Jeff Gachoka Macharia Respondent Judgment 1.The claim herein seeks judgment against the Respondent in the sum of KShs. 754,000.00 (equivalent to USD 5,800 arising out of demurrage charges accrued as a direct consequence of the Respondent's breach as per the Claimant. It is the Claimant’s case that the parties herein entered into a transport agreement dated 28th January 2026 wherein the Respondent undertook to transport goods on behalf of the Claimant’s client, Oceanline Logistics in a container bearing number FCIU9146655 from the port of Mombasa to Kigali, Rwanda, and to return the empty container to Mombasa within twenty-eight from the date of loading, which was on 17th January 2026. 2.Further, the claimant submits that the evidence shows that demurrage began accruing on 16th February 2026 (after expiry of the 28 free days from 17th January 2026, at USD 700 for the first cycle, and has continued to accrue at USD 100 per day thereafter. By 20th April 2026, the total accrued demurrage stood at USD 5,800 equivalent to KShs. 754,000/-. 3.On the other hand, the Respondent denied entering into the said agreement or being liable to pay demurage charges as he attributed the failure to deliver the empty container on time to the lack of a validated storing order from the Claimant to the Warehouse. This resulted in the warehouse rejecting the container leading the Respondent to park the container at Barwaqo Auto Garage, a private warehouse. 4.The court in rendering its judgment has considered the documents filed by the respective parties as well as the oral evidence presented. 5.To begin with, it is well established that the essential elements for a valid contract are an offer, acceptance and consideration. This position was affirmed by the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal in Charles Mwirigi Miriti v Thananga Tea Growers Sacco Ltd & another [2014] KECA 538 (KLR). Applying this to the present case and particularly the transport agreement dated 28th January 2026, this court finds that the said agreement has satisfied the elements of a valid contract and constitutes a valid and binding agreement between the parties. 6.It was a term of the agreement that the Respondent had 28 days from the date of loading on 17th January 2026 to return the empty container to Mombasa and in the event of any delay resulting in accrual of container demurrage, the Respondent would be held personally liable for such charges. 7.According to the Claimant, the evidence shows that demurrage began accruing on 16th February 2026 (after expiry of the 28 free days from 17th January 2026, at USD 700 for the first cycle, and has continued to accrue at USD 100 per day thereafter. By 20th April 2026, the total accrued demurrage stood at USD 5,800 equivalent to KShs. 754,000/-. This is corroborated by the filed invoices by the Claimant. 8.The Respondent on his part states that he delivered the container at the warehouse but on arrival, was denied access for the reason that the Claimant had not obtained a validated storing order. This resulted in the Respondent having to wait till 2nd February 2026 for the container to be received and offloaded. The Respondent filed the gate pass dated 2nd February 2026 to corroborate this fact. The court has scrutinized the documents filed by the Respondent and found that they do not support this version of events. Per the whatsapp screenshots, the Respondent offloaded the container at the private yard on 2nd March 2026 and not 2nd February 2026 as pleaded. Why the Respondent would deliberately plead untrue facts worrying. 9.Be that as it may, in Jackline Njeri Kariuki v. Moses Njung’e Njau [2021] eKLR the court held that; a breach of contract is committed when a party, without lawful excuse, fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively, or incapacitates himself from performing. Presently, the Respondent was clearly in breach having delivered the container way after the 28-day timeline. No valid reason as to why the Respondent delayed for two weeks has been provided in order to justify the delay. In fact, the whatsapp messages filed demonstrate an admission of fault as the Respondent suggested a settlement plan to the Claimant. 10.Having found that the Respondent was in breach, in Kenya Wildlife Service v Awuor (Civil Appeal E013 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3721 (KLR) (26 April 2023) (Judgment), the court held that under common law there cannot be a wrong without a remedy, put differently, Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. The court finds in the circumstances of the case before it that the claimant is entitled to relief, but not in the whole amount claimed. After scrutinizing the invoices filed by the Claimant this court finds that the demurrage for the period of 16th to 28th February 2026 was USD 700, translating to USD 54 per day. From 1st March to 20th April 2026 demurrage would therefore stand at USD 2754 equivalent to Kshs. 355,266/- as per the current exchange rate of Kshs. 129 to the dollar. In total the Respondent is liable to pay USD 3454. 11.In the end, this court finds that the Claimant has proved its case against the Respondent on a balance of probabilities and enters judgment in favor of the Claimant for USD 3454 equivalent to KShs. 445,566/-interest from date of judgment. Parties to bear their own costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……24TH…DAY OF……JUNE……2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;……N/A…..Claimant;……Ms. Cherono….. for RespondentC/A Esther