Umoja Magharibi Kenya Limited v Wafula

Umoja Magharibi Kenya Limited v Wafula

The Court held that it had jurisdiction under Rule 29 to review its judgment because the prior decision mistakenly included payments made before the loan was disbursed. That misattribution constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. Once the dates were correctly aligned, the respondent had paid Kshs....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] SCC 238 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: UMOJA MAGHARIBI KENYA LIMITED; Respondent: ANTHONY WANJALA WAFULA
Court
Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case E093 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Civil Loan Dispute; Application for Review of Judgment / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review
Outcome
Notice of Motion allowed; judgment reviewed and varied
Judges
["AZ Ogange"]
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of the Record, Loan Repayment Computation, Arithmetical/clerical Mistake, M Pesa Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Small Claims Court Contract/lending Review of Judgment Error Apparent on the Face of the Record Loan Repayment Computation Arithmetical/clerical Mistake M Pesa Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UMOJA MAGHARIBI KENYA LIMITED

Claimant/applicant

ANTHONY WANJALA WAFULA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Civil Loan Dispute; Application for Review of Judgment / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to review its judgment under Rule 29 of the Small Claims Court Rules, 2019
  2. 2 Whether the impugned judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record arising from misattribution of pre-disbursement payments
  3. 3 What the correct amount paid and outstanding balance on the loan was

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it had jurisdiction under Rule 29 to review its judgment because the prior decision mistakenly included payments made before the loan was disbursed. That misattribution constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. Once the dates were correctly aligned, the respondent had paid Kshs. 33,530 against a principal loan of Kshs. 65,125, leaving Kshs. 31,595 outstanding; the earlier finding of payment of Kshs. 74,222 and overpayment of Kshs. 9,097 was set aside.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion allowed; judgment reviewed and varied

Orders

  • The finding that the Respondent had paid Kshs. 74,222/= and overpaid by Kshs. 9,097/= is set aside.
  • The Court finds that the Respondent paid Kshs. 33,530/= towards the loan of Kshs. 65,125/=.