Isanga Company Limited v Yarick Investment Ltd (Commercial Case E061 of 2025) [2026] SCC 2 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Voi Small Claims Court awarded a cement supplier Kshs.21,300 with costs and interest after the buyer failed to respond to a properly served credit-supply claim.
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 respondent was duly served with the claim
- 2.Whether the claimant proved the claim for Kshs.21,300/= for 30 bags of Simba 50kgs cement supplied on credit on a balance of probabilities
Key legal issues
#Service of the claim
The respondent was duly served with the claim, as evidenced by the certificate of service filed.
The adjudicator perused the claim, supporting documents and the filed certificate of service and was satisfied that service on the respondent was proper, enabling the court to proceed to determine the claim in the respondent's absence.
Proof of the debt on a balance of probabilities
The claimant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that 30 bags of Simba 50kgs cement worth Kshs.21,300/= were supplied on credit and remained unpaid despite demands.
The court relied on the documents filed and attached to the statement of claim. With the claim uncontested after proper service, the documentary evidence discharged the claimant's burden on a balance of probabilities, justifying default judgment for the full amount claimed.
Legal principles established
#- A claim supported by documentary evidence, with proper service and no appearance by the respondent, may be proved on a balance of probabilities and judgment entered in default under Section 27 of the SCC Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Default judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent pursuant to Section 27 of the SCC Act
- 2.The claim allowed in the sum of Kshs.21,300/= together with costs and interest at court rates
- 3.Interest to be calculated from the date of filing the claim until payment in full
- 4.The file closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 27 of the Small Claims Court Act (SCC Act)
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 perusal of the documents filed, I find that on a balance of probabilities the claimant has proved the claim against the respondent.
The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 6th October 2025 is allowed in the sum of Kshs.21,300/= together with costs and interest at court rates.
The interest to be calculated from date of filing the claim until payment in full.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isanga Company Limited v Yarick Investment Ltd (Commercial Case E061 of 2025) [2026] SCC 2 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/2/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.