Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC v Katumo (Civil Case 179 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 62 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a borrower who cannot disprove a lender's loan statement with documents still owes the claimed debt, even after his vehicle was repossessed.
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 defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/= or at all
- 2.Whether the repossession of the motor vehicle by the plaintiff was unlawful
- 3.Whether the defendant is entitled to general damages as against the plaintiff
- 4.Whether the plaintiff owes the defendant any money
- 5.Whether the plaintiff should be compelled to render an account of the money received on account of the loan agreement
- 6.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff Ksh. 1,960,376.88/=
Yes, the debt was proven on a balance of probabilities; the unchallenged loan statement was prima facie evidence of the balance owing as at 22/9/2016
The loan statement produced by the plaintiff showed a balance of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/= as at 22/9/2016. The defendant did not challenge its contents in cross-examination or adduce contrary evidence. His Mpesa statement was not disputed or interrogated by the plaintiff, but he failed to demonstrate that the repayments exceeded the loan. The court deprecated the plaintiff's failure to explain its computation but found sufficient material to prove the debt.
Whether the repossession of the motor vehicle was unlawful
The repossession was lawful; the chattels mortgage agreement entitled the plaintiff to repossess upon default without notice or consent, and the authorities relied on by the plaintiff supported such clauses
The defendant admitted signing the loan agreement and was aware he was in default. He took no steps to redeem the vehicle or stop the sale after repossession, and the counter-claim was an afterthought. The Barasa authority relied on by the defendant was distinguishable on its circumstances. Any irregularity in the conduct of the auction did not vitiate the right of repossession, and the defendant did not challenge the auction or allege an undervalue.
Whether the plaintiff owed the defendant any money or should render accounts
No; the defendant failed to discharge his burden of proving a surplus or that the accounts were false
The loan and bank account statements were served with the plaint and the defendant did not interrogate them in cross-examination or point out any surplus. Both parties wrongly assumed the court would audit their accounts. If the defendant believed the accounts were false, he ought to have adduced evidence to that effect. The claim relating to stock and water tanks was unpleaded and unproven.
Legal principles established
#- A loan statement produced by a lender is prima facie evidence of the amount owed and must be rebutted by contrary evidence from the borrower
- Payments must be proven by documentary evidence and not just by word of mouth
- It is not the duty of the court to audit parties' accounts or assist a party in proving its case
- Interest on a liquidated claim should run from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/=
- 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree
- 3.The defendant's counter-claim dismissed
- 4.The plaintiff awarded costs of the suit and counter-claim
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit on a loan agreement (plaint dated 27/6/2019); no specific constitutional or statutory jurisdictional provision invoked
Relief refused
#General damages for unlawful repossession of motor vehicle KCD 880R
Repossession was lawful as the chattels mortgage agreement permitted repossession without notice upon default, and the defendant did not challenge the auction or seek redemption
Order to render a true account and refund of surplus paid
The defendant did not prove that repayments plus sale proceeds exceeded the loan amount; it was his burden to point to such evidence
Claim for goods (stock and water tanks worth Ksh. 169,000/=) allegedly taken by the plaintiff
The issue was not pleaded and no sufficient evidence was adduced
Costs
The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit and counter-claim
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.
a. Judgment is hereby entered for the plaintifi against the defendant in the sum of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/=;
b. The defendant’s counter-claim is hereby dismissed;
c. The plaintifi is awarded costs of the suit and counter-claim.
My opinion is that the loan statement is prima facie evidence of what the defendant owed the plaintifi. This evidence can only be rebutted by contrary evidence by the defendant.
The plaintifi merely dumped documents to the court and left the court to do the analysis and audit. There is absolutely no meaningful explanation from the plaintifi’s witness on how the amount claimed was arrived at.
Consequently, interest on the award shall accrue at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's witness gave contradictory figures for the defendant's repayments (Ksh. 1,236,100 vs Ksh. 1,219,366) and the total loan payable (Ksh. 5,319,111 vs Ksh. 5,302,377)
The judgment inconsistently records the auction date as 7/9/2016 and 2/9/2016
Chattels mortgage agreement produced in evidence was incomplete, with page six missing where the signatures of the parties ought to be
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC v Katumo (Civil Case 179 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 62 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/62/eng@2026-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.