Victoria v Bii (Commercial Case E691 of 2026) [2026] SCC 204 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Judgment)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF KENYA AT UASIN GISHU COUNTY** **COURT NAME: ELDORET SMALL CLAIMS COURT** **CASE NUMBER: SCCCOMM/E691/2026** **VICTORIA VS CHARLES BII** **JUDGMENT** 1. The claimant filled statement of claim dated 9th April, 2026 seeking judgment in the sum of Ksh 324,000/=, costs and interest. The particulars of the claim as pleaded by the claimant are that she is a member of Stima Sacco M/NO 47556, she guaranteed the respondent a loan he applied which he defaulted and the claimant was assigned to pay the said loan totalling to ksh 224,000/-. The claimant avers that her salary was attached and she paid from 27th June 2024 up to 2nd April, 2025. She claimed for refund of ksh 224,000/- plus damages of ksh 100,000 totalling to ksh 324,000/-. 2. The respondent filed his response date dated 1st July, 2026 in which he avers that he admits being advanced by the claimant a personal loan in the sum of ksh 224,000/- on or about 20/6/2024. He denotes further that he lost his job at KCB bank and the situation rendered him unable to pay the said loan to the claimant. That he has another loan he is currently servicing at KCB Bank and will pay the plaintiff once he is done with the repayment. He further prayed for the claimant’s claim to be dismissed in its entirety with costs. 3. The matter was set down for hearing on 3rd August 2026 when the respondent failed to attend, vide a return of service dated 20th July, 2026 the court was persuaded that service was properly done and the claimant proceeded with her case. She reiterated what had been captured in her claim, and added that the respondent used to work at KCB bank as an operations manager. That she was introduced to him by one Catherine Chepkurui who was a sales agent with KCB bank. The three were stima sacco members and used to guarantee one another. The claimant added that the present loan she paid for the respondent was the 2nd loan she guaranteed him from Stima Sacco. 4. That around the year 2023 she did not receive her salary, the same was being channelled through her sacco account and when she made inquiries at the bank she was informed that her account had been locked to clear the loan arrears guaranteed for the respondent. The claimant stated that she was not even aware that the claimant had defaulted, she tried to reach out the respondent in vain. That later when she got hold of the claimant, he was very rude to her. Further, it was her testimony that the respondent had also guaranteed her sum of ksh 1,200,000/- and since he had defaulted the sacco had to set aside the claimant's loan recovery which was to be cleared by June 2026, until she clears the respondent’s loan arrears. She added that she retired on 30th June, 2026, has no salary and sceptical she will not be able to repay the loan as expected. It was her prayer that the respondent be compelled to refund the money she paid for him and sought for damages as well. She produced the stima sacco loan statement dated 9th March 2026 as C exhibit 1, Notification to guarantors from Stima Sacco as C exhibit 2, Statement from Stima Sacco sated 4th April, 2025 as C exhibit 3 and letter of notice of retirement as C exhibit no 4. 5. At the close of her case, the claimant requested the court to consider the pleadings, documentary evidence and the respondent's Response and proceed to render judgment. 6. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence tendered and the documents produced. In my view, the issues falling for determination are: 7. Whether the claimant has proved her entitlement to reimbursement of Kshs. 224,000/=; and 8. Whether the claimant is entitled to an award of Kshs. 100,000/= as damages. 9. The claimant's evidence was that she guaranteed the respondent's loan advanced by Stima Sacco. Following the respondent's default, the Sacco invoked the guarantee and recovered Kshs. 224,000/= from the claimant through deductions from her salary. In support of her testimony, she produced the Stima Sacco Loan Statements, showing what was due and paid, the Notification to Guarantors, all of which corroborate that the respondent defaulted and that the claimant settled the outstanding loan as guarantor. The respondent neither attended the hearing to challenge the claimant's evidence nor produced any evidence to rebut the documentary evidence. More importantly, in his Response dated 1st July, 2026, the respondent admitted that the claimant had advanced or paid the sum of Kshs. 224,000/= only that he alleges it was a personal loan. No evidence was adduced to support his assertions. His only explanation for failing to repay the claimant was that he had lost his employment at KCB Bank and was servicing another loan, adding that he intended to repay the claimant once he completed servicing that loan. 10. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and ordinarily dispenses with the need for further proof unless withdrawn or explained. The respondent's admission of liability, coupled with the claimant's documentary evidence, leaves no doubt that the claimant discharged the respondent's obligation to the Sacco after his default. Moreover, the respondent's financial difficulties, though unfortunate, do not extinguish his legal obligation to indemnify the claimant. A guarantor who satisfies the principal debtor's obligation is entitled to recover from the principal debtor the amount paid on his behalf. Consequently, I find that the claimant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, her entitlement to reimbursement of Kshs. 224,000/=. 11. The claimant sought Kshs. 100,000/= as damages in addition to reimbursement of the amount she paid on behalf of the respondent. However, she did not specifically plead or prove the legal basis upon which the damages were sought. The claimant's cause of action is essentially one for recovery of money paid on behalf of the respondent pursuant to a contract of guarantee. The primary remedy in such circumstances is indemnification or reimbursement of the amount paid. Although the claimant testified that she suffered inconvenience, had her salary attached, failed to repay her loan on time and further her retirement will make the repayment of her own loan difficult, such consequences, without more, do not constitute a legal basis for an award of general damages in a claim of this nature. The claimant did not prove any separate loss capable of attracting damages over and above reimbursement of the amount recovered from her. The claim for damages must therefore fail. 12. In the upshot, the claimant has proved her case on a balance of probability and the claim is hereby allowed with cost of ksh 1,800/- plus interest. Stay of 30 days granted. Judgment dated and delivered at Eldoret this 7th day of July, 2026. Before: M.E Aligula- RM In the presence of C/A Mr. Lepatoiye Claimant:N/A Respondent:N/A