https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/44

Simon v River Annex Ltd (Commercial Case E5523 of 2025) [2026] SCC 44 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 44 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E5523 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM June 29, 2026 Between Joseph Simon Claimant and River Annex Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit via a statement of claim dated 20/5/2025 seeking judgment against the claimant for Kshs. 405,444.00/= on the basis that the subject vehicle registration number KDK 007E Jeep Wrangler Sport 2015 was damaged while under the care of the respondent during a car wash service. That the respondent negligently allowed water to spill onto the vehicle’s dashboard, damaging the after-market dashboard unit which subsequently failed. That though the respondent acknowledged the incident, it failed to compensate for the loss and instead proposed an unreasonable arrangement involving wage deductions from its staff. The claimant averred that the loss, estimated at USD 2,938 (equivalent to Kshs. 405,444/=), had occasioned financial distress to him and he thus sought compensation. 2.The respondent filed a response dated 18/9/2025. Though it admitted that the claimant’s motor vehicle had been presented at its premises for cleaning services on or about April 2025, the respondent denied having caused any damage to the vehicle’s dashboard or dashboard kit as alleged. It was contended that the claim was inconsistent and exaggerated, noting that the claimant had initially demanded USD 999, yet later sought Kshs. 405,444/= (USD 2,938) without sufficient explanation, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of the claim. 3.The respondent further averred that the vehicle was released in good condition without any complaints, and the damaged dashboard was reported days later. It was denied that any staff admitted liability and there was no link between the services and alleged damage. 4.The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 19/1/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 5/3/2026. 5.I have seen and considered the pleadings, testimonies, evidence and submissions before court. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven that the respondent was liable for any damage, if any, occasioned on the subject motor vehicle. 6.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. 7.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. 8.From the pleadings on record, the claimant produced proof of payment for the service being Kshs. 9,000/=. As such, I do find that there was a contract for services noting that the same was not denied. 9.As regards the damage, the claimant produced a job card from Big Cras Centre and Service dated 21/4/2025 indicating that the dash display was not working as it was blurry, and that water particles were visible on the dashboard. The display unit was also damaged. The assessment was done around 6 days from the date of services offered by the respondent thus the time-lines were not unreasonably apart. 10.There were also photographic evidence indicating that the dash board was indeed blurry and damaged. Further, there was evidence that the claimant reported the issue with the respondent’s officer who communicated that it was likely that water splashed on to the dashboard when the door handles were being washed. I do find that the respondent ought to have exercised reasonable care and skill. 11.From the foregoing, I do find that it is likely that the claimant’s vehicle was indeed damaged during the car wash services rendered by the respondent. There is a link between the car-wash services, and the later defect caused on the dash board due to water spillage. 12.As regards to the claimed amount of Kshs. 405,444/= or USD 2938, I do find that the same was indeed inconsistent with the earlier demand for USD 999. Indeed, from the party’s correspondence, the claimant sent a pro-foma invoice of USD999 to the respondent for replacement of the dashboard. The claimant produced a paypal receipt in support of the claim for USD 2,938. However, I do note that the same indicated that though a J Pro dashboard was purchased, other items that were unrelated to the claim including K1 radio, Batman camera and 4 vent lights. The respondent cannot be made liable for the entire amount of USD 2,938 and allowing the claim as prayed would amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the claimant. 13.In the end, I do find that the claim was partly successful and find that the claim for USD 999 is awardable and I hereby order as follows: -1.Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of USD 999 or the equivalent in Kshs as per the CBK rates on the date of judgment.2.The claimant is awarded costs Kshs. 15,000/= 14.The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI via CTS this 29th Day of June 2026HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR