Toddy Civil Engineering Limited v Adkins Equipment Supplies Limited (Civil Appeal 535 of 2019) [2025] KECA 988 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed Toddy Civil Engineering's appeal, confirming that simply denying a debt without proof of payment is not a defence in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred when he found that, on the evidence, the appellant had no sufficient defence to the respondent's claim
- 2.Whether the respondent's case stood uncontroverted
Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of a defence consisting of a bare denial of indebtedness
The appellant's defence that it had paid for all sand delivered was evasive and insufficient because it was unsupported by any witness statement or documentary proof of payment
The appellant admitted the contract and deliveries of sand but pleaded payment without tendering any evidence of it. The respondent's claim was supported by witness statements, delivery notes, invoices and a bank statement, unchallenged since no witnesses were called under the parties' consent. Relying on Ragbit Singh Chatte, the Court held a mere denial without reasons is not a sufficient defence and a party alleging payment must prove it.
Whether the respondent's documentary case stood uncontroverted on the agreed documents-only mode of trial
Because the parties agreed to decide the dispute on filed documents without calling witnesses, and only the respondent filed documents evidencing delivery and outstanding payment, the respondent's case was uncontroverted and proved
The consent regime meant no cross-examination would test the documents. The respondent filed delivery notes showing 114 unpaid lorry loads at Kshs.25,000 each, totalling Kshs.2,850,000, plus a bank statement of payments. The appellant filed no documents at all. The High Court was therefore right to allow the claim, and the Court of Appeal found no error in that conclusion.
Legal principles established
#- A second appellate court confines itself to matters of law unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse
- A mere denial of liability without reasons is not a sufficient defence; a defendant must answer the point of substance and, where payment is alleged, must prove it
- Where a party denies an allegation in a pleading, the denial must not be evasive but must answer the point of substance
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Milimani, Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate framework; the judgment identifies the matter simply as 'a second appeal' without citing the specific provision
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal, setting aside of the High Court judgment and reinstatement of the trial court's judgment
The defence was merely evasive and did not answer the pleaded and documented case of the respondent
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
we find no merits in the appeal, and therefore dismiss it, with costs to the respondent.
we hold the considered view that the defence put forward by the appellant was merely evasive. It did not answer the case which had pleaded, and which had been supported with both a witness statement as well as with documents.
First of all, a mere denial is not suficient defense in this type of case. There must be some reason why the defendant does not owe the money.
We shall confine ourselves to matters of law unless it is shown that the two courts below considered matters they should not have considered or failed to consider matters they should have considered or, looking at the entire decision, it is perverse
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the statement of defence was filed on 14th June 2015, which predates the plaint and the ex-parte judgment of 22nd June 2016; the date appears to be an error in the judgment
In paragraph 16 the judgment states it was the appellant's case that it had paid for all the sand, but refers to it as 'the respondent's case', an internal drafting inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Toddy Civil Engineering Limited v Adkins Equipment Supplies Limited (Civil Appeal 535 of 2019) [2025] KECA 988 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (second appeal from Nairobi, Commercial and Tax Division). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/988/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.