https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/66

Simon v River Annex Ltd (Commercial Case E5523 of 2025) [2026] SCC 66 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 66 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E5523 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 3, 2026 Between Joseph Simon Claimant and River Annex Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit via a statement of claim dated December 2025 seeking judgment against the claimant for Kshs. 260,560.00/= on the basis that she leased her motor vehicle KCE 463L (subject vehicle) to the respondent vide the lease agreement dated 19/9/2025 for Kshs 45,000/= per month. That the respondent was in arrears of Kshs. 31,060/= for September and October. That he also breached the agreement by making unauthorized modifications to the vehicle, charging the claimant Kshs. 44,500/= for expenses not provided for under the contract, damaging the vehicle’s windscreen and failing to repair it at a cost of Kshs. 15,000/=, refusing to avail the vehicle for installation of a tracking device thereby necessitating tracking and investigation expenses of Kshs. 65,000/=, and retaining possession of the vehicle despite termination of the agreement by notice dated 6/10/2025. The claimant also averred that the respondent’s continued detention of the vehicle caused loss of rental income of Kshs. 60,000/=. He thus sought Kshs. 260,560/= as well as orders compelling the respondent to return the motor vehicle, general damages for breach of contract, costs and interest. 2.The respondent filed a response dated 16/1/2026 and pleaded that the monthly rate was Kshs. 35,000/= and the same was duly paid. That there was no complain for the less payment made in November 2025 as deductions were made for repairs on the subject vehicle. That the claimant subjected him to harassment, insults and unfounded accusations of theft despite being lawfully in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. It was also pleaded that any mechanical problems experienced by the vehicle arose from wear and tear and were communicated to the claimant, with repairs being undertaken upon mutual agreement. 3.The respondent denied damaging the vehicle’s windscreen or refusing to repair it and stated that the damage was promptly reported and repaired through Monarch Insurance in accordance with the insurance provisions of the agreement. That there was no breach of the contract as alleged and it was the claimant that acted maliciously despite the agreement being due to expire on 19/12/2025. That he eventually returned the motor vehicle together with all repaired and replaced parts and executed a Motor Vehicle Handover Agreement dated 16/12/2025 thus fully discharging his obligations under the contract. 4.The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 27/4/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 18/3/2026. 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 claim as against the respondent. 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.I have considered the court record and note that there was indeed the car lease agreement indicating a monthly fee of Kshs. 45,000/=. The record reflects that the respondent paid Kshs. 35,000/= for one month and Kshs. 23,940/= for another month. The same also reflects in the parties correspondence. The respondent’s allegation that the monthly rate was Kshs, 35,000/= was thus unsupported. As such, the claim for balance of Kshs. 31,060/= was sufficiently proven. 9.As regards the claim for Kshs. 65,000/= for tracking and investigations, I do note that from the party’s correspondence, the claimant consistently requested the respondent to avail the vehicle for purposes of installing the tracker as provided under the contract. However, there was nothing to support the allegation that investigations were undertaken at the cost of Kshs. 65,000/= noting that there were no receipts, invoices, payment records or investigation report on record. As such, that claim remained unproven and could not succeed. 10.The claims for reimbursement of Kshs. 44,500/= allegedly spent on unauthorized modifications and Kshs. 15,000/= being the cost of replacing the windscreen were likewise not supported by documentary evidence demonstrating either the expenditure incurred or the respondent's contractual liability. The allegation for unlawful detainment was also unsupported. 11.Further, though the claimant claimed loss of anticipated earnings for the month of December 2025, there was no evidence tendered to demonstrate that the claimant had procured another client for the month of December 2025 and that the respondent had declined to return the subject vehicle leading to loss of earnings. 12.In the end, I do find that the claim was only partially proven. The remainder of the claim was not strictly proved as required by law. I say so noting that the claim was in the nature of special damages and it is trite that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. 13.It then follows that mere allegations, however plausible, are insufficient. It was upon the claimant to produce cogent evidence such as receipts, invoices, agreements, payment records or other documentary proof demonstrating both the occurrence of the loss and the exact amount claimed. The claimant bore the burden of proving each head of claim to the required standard. 14.I do place reliance on the case of Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that the burden of proof in civil cases is discharged on a balance of probabilities and that a party must adduce evidence upon which a court can properly find in his favour. In the present case, the claimant failed to discharge that burden fully. 15.The upshot is that the claim was partly successful. 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. 31,060/= plus interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.2.The claimant is awarded costs Kshs. 5,000/= 16.The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution.It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026HON. GLADYS W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR