https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/170

Rono t/a Serenity Auto v Ogeda (Claim E2451 of 2026) [2026] SCC 170 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 170 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Claim E2451 of 2026 GW Kiamah, RM July 17, 2026 Between Terence Rono T/A Serenity Auto Claimant and George Maurice Ogeda Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit vide the statement of claim dated 25/2/2026 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 133,900.00/= plus costs and interest. It was the claimant’s case that he offered the respondent mechanical services wherein he repaired the respondent’s motor vehicle KCH 980A on 5/12/2025 and the respondent inspected the repairs on 20/12/2025 and upon being satisfied, drove off with the vehicle without payment. 2.The respondent filed a response dated 12/3/2026 denying that the claimant ever repaired his vehicle KCH 980A thus no payment was payable to him. Vide his statement dated 25/3/2026, the respondent stated he had engaged one Bruce Gaza to inspect the subject vehicle’s engine and give feedback which he failed to give on time prompting the respondent to visit the garage on 9/12/2025 where he found that the engine had been dismembered beyond agreement and some parts exchanged with faulty ones. That Brice re-assembled the engine and waived the assembling fee and the respondent took the vehicle. 3.The claimant filed a response dated 10/5/2026 and stated that Brice Gaza was his employee and authorized agent. That upon inspection of the vehicle, the respondent authorized repairs and the same were done thus payment was due. The allegation of fraud or exchange of parts was denied and it was pleaded that the genuine invoices were raised for materials and labour and the same ought to have been paid. 4.The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 14/5/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 20/5/2026. 5.I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings, evidence and testimony before court. The main issue is whether the parties have proven their individual claims against each other on a balance of probabilities. 6.The Court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira [2016] eKLR while discussing the standard of proof in civil liability claims in our jurisdiction had this to say: -“In our jurisdiction, the standard of proof in civil liability claims is that of the balance of probabilities. This means that the Court will assess the oral, documentary and real evidence advanced by each party and decide which case is more probable. To put it another way, on the evidence, which occurrence of the event was more likely to happen than not.” 7.It also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. 8.Though the respondent denied instructing the claimant to repaid his vehicle, the claimant was able to prove that the said Bruce Gaza was his employee at the garage where the respondent’s vehicle was allegedly repaired. Indeed, Brice Gaza himself swore the statement dated 10/5/2026 confirming that he was the claimant’s employee, and that the respondent gave him instructions for repair of the subject vehicle. As such, I do find that there was a contract between the claimant and the respondent through the claimant’s agent and any dealings between the respondent and Bruce Gaza were dealings with the claimant through his employee and agent. 9.As regards whether or not the subject vehicle was repaired, the claimant called three witnesses inclusive of himself who all testified that the respondent indeed instructed Bruce to inspect the engine and upon such inspection, they informed of the necessary repairs. They also testified that the vehicle was towed to the claimant’s garage on 25/11/2025. The correspondence between the claimant and Bruce confirmed that there was communication between the parties regarding the repairs. There was on record pictorial evidence of the vehicle being towed, and a receipt for Kshs. 6,000/= drawn by Delight Towing Servics Ltd and issued to the respondent for the towing services. 10.There were also pictorial evidence as the vehicle was being repaired. There was also correspondence indicating that the claimant shared the invoice with the respondent who indicated that he would advise on payment before 3 that day. Notably, the respondent did not challenge the invoice or request for payment. As such, I am satisfied that the subject vehicle was repaired and invoices raised. The claimant’s witnesses testified that the respondent took the vehicle for a test drive and failed to go back to the garage, or make payments. There was nothing on record to indicate that the invoices were settled. 11.Though the respondent pleaded that the claimant dismantled the engine and replaced his parts with faulty or older parts, such allegation was not supported by evidence. There was also nothing to indicate that such complaints had been raised with Bruce Gaza, or even the claimant being the owner of business. I do find that those were serious allegations which required cogent evidence. However, no expert report, photographs, inspection report, receipts, complaint records, or any other independent evidence was produced to support those assertions. 12.In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain unsubstantiated. I therefore find that the respondent failed to prove the alleged misconduct on the part of the claimant 13.As to whether the claimant had proven the claim, I do note that there was on record the invoice dated 5/12/2025 for Kshs. 57,400/= for the towing fees, parts and labour. That invoice was shared with the respondent and no protest was raised, instead, the respondent committed to advise on payment. There was also the invoice for Kshs. 76,500/= for purchase of an engine block and other engine parts being the head bolts and tensioner. Indeed, the respondent vide his statement stated that he had been advised that he would need to buy another engine block. As such, I do find that the invoices were directly related to the repairs undertaken on the subject vehicle. 14.Having considered the totality of the evidence before court, I do find that the claimant has successfully proven the claim as against the respondent. To that end, I hereby order as follows: -1.Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 133,900.00/=.2.The amount shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.3.The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 15,000/= 15.The respondent is granted 30-days stay of execution.It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026.HON GLADYS. W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR