New Titanic Jacaranda General Spares v Wanjiru (Commercial Case E072 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 257 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan Small Claims Court made a former shop manager pay her employer Kshs. 868,775 after a court-acknowledged audit proved stock losses she could not explain.
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 Claimant proved its claim
- 2.The extent of liability, if any, against the Respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant proved the stock-loss claim against the Respondent
Yes - on a balance of probabilities, through the audit report, oral testimony and the Respondent's admissions
The auditor testified that a physical stock take was reconciled against the electronic inventory system, showing loss of Kshs. 552,904/=. The report was measured, including items with no discrepancies. The Respondent produced no independent expert or forensic evidence to controvert it and admitted the auditor participated in the stock-taking and that she was aware of the report. She also admitted no stock could leave the premises without her signature.
Whether the Respondent's defence of pre-existing stock discrepancies undermined the claim
No - the defence was unsupported by documentary or corroborative evidence
The Respondent alleged no stock-taking preceded her assumption of office and that she raised pre-existing discrepancies that were never addressed. She claimed records were left at the Claimant's premises but called no witness, including those involved in the initial stock-taking, to corroborate her account. The burden of proving the factual basis of her defence was on her and was not discharged.
Whether special damages of Kshs. 150,000/= for auditor's fees was proved
Yes - specifically pleaded and strictly proved through the cheque and the auditor's oral testimony
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The Claimant pleaded the auditor's fees and proved them through production of the cheque and the oral testimony of the auditor (CW2), satisfying the strict standard of proof applicable to special damages.
Legal principles established
#- An employer alleging loss attributable to an employee must establish the same by credible evidence; where technical evidence is uncontroverted by equally competent evidence, the court is entitled to rely on it.
- He who alleges must prove; the burden lay on the Respondent to establish the factual basis of her defence.
- The mere existence of CCTV, without evidentiary follow-through, cannot displace otherwise credible evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 868,775.20/=
- 2.Interest on the decretal sum from the date of filing of suit until payment in full
- 3.Costs of the suit assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court jurisdiction under the Small Claims Court Act (implied from the court's adjudication of the money claim); no specific provision cited in the judgment
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.
Judgment be and is hereby entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 868,775.20/=
Interest on (a) from the date of filing of suit until payment in full; and c. costs of the suit assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=.
The court is satisfied that the Claimant has discharged its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Recommendations for system upgrades, without more, do not amount to proof of systemic failure or manipulation
The mere existence of CCTV cannot, without evidentiary follow through displace otherwise credible evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#The Statpack Industries authority quoted concerns a negligence/accident claim against an employer, yet it is applied by analogy to an employer's claim against an employee for stock loss; the factual fit is loose.
The claim includes 30% interest per contract but the judgment does not explain the computation of the total awarded sum of Kshs. 868,775.20/= relative to the Kshs. 552,904/= loss and Kshs. 150,000/= audit fees.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "New Titanic Jacaranda General Spares v Wanjiru (Commercial Case E072 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/257/eng@2026-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.