The High Court allowed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, faulting the trial court for shifting the burden of proof and accepting unproven expense claims.
High Court allowed an appeal over WhatsApp service, holding service on a registered number was not enough where the number was not shown to be the defendant’s used number.
Kiplangat v Tuwei & another (Civil Appeal E256 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13180 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E256 of 2025
Judge
["RN Nyakundi"]
The High Court set aside an ex parte small claims judgment, holding that the appellant had not been properly heard and ordering a retrial before a different adjudicator.
Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E4756 of 2025
Judge
["ME Aligula"]
The applicant did not demonstrate any statutory ground for review. His complaints about ownership of the motor vehicle, the effect of registration, the alleged payment of Kshs.500,000, and the concepts of detinue and conversion all required re-evaluation of evidence and therefore could not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The proper remedy, if he believed the court erred in law or fact, was appeal, not review. Because the review failed, there was no basis for stay of execution or for setting aside and substituting the judgment.
Mwangi v Lesma Travels Ltd (Commercial Case E6702 of 2026) [2026] SCC 216 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E6702 of 2026
Judge
["GW Kiamah"]
The claimant discharged the burden of proof by producing the agreement, proof of payment, and a signed refund form acknowledging that services were not rendered and a refund was due. The respondent's unproven assertion of a partial refund could not defeat the documentary evidence. The court therefore found the full claim proved on a balance of probabilities and entered judgment for the claimant.
Kingoro v Muthini (Commercial Case E6765 of 2026) [2026] SCC 224 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E6765 of 2026
Judge
["GW Kiamah"]
The claimant proved only Kshs. 400,000 of the alleged loan on a balance of probabilities because the correspondence supported that principal sum, but the additional Kshs. 100,000 claimed as interest was found unconscionable and unenforceable due to its rapid and disproportionate escalation of a friendly loan.
Oyuchi v Magut (Commercial Case E731 of 2026) [2026] SCC 209 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E731 of 2026
Judge
["ME Aligula"]
The Court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish which party breached the lease agreements, so the double-refund clause and the full claim of Kshs.400,000 could not be enforced. However, the Respondent expressly admitted that Kshs.150,000 remained outstanding and payable, and that admitted sum was therefore recoverable by the Claimant. The claim for expected profits failed because it was unsupported by any proof.
Umoja Magharibi Kenya Ltd v Wafula (Commercial Case E093 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 457 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Commercial Case E093 of 2026
Judge
["AZ Ogange"]
The court compared the pleaded claim with the M-Pesa payment records and found payments totaling Kshs. 74,222 against a claim of Kshs. 65,125, meaning the claim had been fully satisfied and even overpaid. Because no counterclaim was before the court, no refund order could issue; the claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Safaricom PLC v Iriaini Tea Factory Company Ltd (Civil Case E038 of 2026) [2026] SCC 195 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Civil Case E038 of 2026
Judge
["GK Waithira"]
The respondent’s driver was negligent in failing to keep a reasonable distance from the claimant’s vehicle despite daylight visibility and traffic ahead, so the respondent was vicariously liable. The claimant sufficiently proved special damages through assessment, invoice, payment voucher, and related documents, and was therefore entitled to the full claimed amount.