Bahati v Akich (Commercial Case E059 of 2025) [2026] SCC 1 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Small Claims Court in Voi refused to undo a judgment based on a clear written admission of debt, and dismissed the application with costs.
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 applicant has satisfied the conditions for setting aside a judgment on admission
- 2.Whether the claim can be struck out for being an abuse of the process of court as the same does not disclose any reasonable cause of action
- 3.Who bears costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Conditions for setting aside a judgment on admission
The conditions were not satisfied; the judgment entered on 5/11/2025 was a judgment on admission, not a default judgment, and no ground of fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence or duress was shown
The court found that at no point was a default judgment entered; the judgment of 5/11/2025 was based on the respondent's written admission of the claim of Kshs 200,000 less one month's premium, in which he committed to continue paying. Setting aside requires the same grounds as setting aside a contract, none of which were even alleged. The admission was clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, and no proof of payment of the balance was attached.
Striking out the claim as an abuse of process
The invitation to strike out the claim was declined
The applicant claimed the debt had been fully paid but produced only an mpesa statement of Kshs 20,000 and relied on a notice of withdrawal in Voi SCCOMM No. E034 of 2025, which did not prove settlement of the balance. Without evidence of payment, the court could not find there was no cause of action, and it would be a sad day in the history of litigation to strike out the claim on that basis.
Costs of the application
Costs awarded to the claimant as the application was opposed and effectively defended
Costs follow events. Since the application was destined for dismissal and was defended effectively, the claimant was awarded costs, which the court assessed at Kshs 3,500.
Legal principles established
#- The grounds for setting aside a judgment on admission are the same as those that would justify the setting aside of a contract
- A court will only set aside a judgment on admission if the admission is not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous
- He who alleges must prove
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17/11/2025 is dismissed with costs to the claimant
- 2.Costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 3,500/=
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original small claims jurisdiction; application brought under the provisions stated on the face of the application
Relief refused
#Setting aside and/or varying the judgment dated 5th November 2025 and any consequential orders therein
The applicant did not demonstrate any condition for setting aside a judgment on admission such as fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence or duress; the admission was clear, unequivocal and unambiguous
Striking out the claimant's claim for being an abuse of the court process
The applicant alleged the debt had been paid in full but attached no proof; he who alleges must prove
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the claimant; costs assessed at Kshs. 3,500/=
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.
the grounds for setting aside a judgment on admission or a consent judgment are the same as those that would justify the setting aside of a contract see the case of KCB vs Benjoh Amalgamated & another CA No. 276 of 1997.
courts will only allow an application for setting aside judgment on admission if the admission by the respondent is not clear, equivocal and ambiguous.
The application dated 17/11/2025 is wholly without merit and it is consequently dismissed with costs to the claimant.
The costs are hereby assessed at Kshs. 3,500/= It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant's name appears as both 'Salome Bahati' and 'Salome Mutuku' in the judgment
The judgment is internally inconsistent on who applied to strike out the claim: the notice of motion is brought by the applicant/respondent seeking to strike out the claimant's claim, but the analysis paragraph refers to 'the claim by the applicant is that the claim was paid in full' in a way suggesting confusion as to the claimant/applicant roles
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bahati v Akich (Commercial Case E059 of 2025) [2026] SCC 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 17/11/2025 (in claim between Salome Bahati and Lucas Akich; related to Voi SCCOMM No. E034 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/1/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.