Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] SCC 2 (KLR)

Isanga Company Limited v Yarick Investment Ltd (Commercial Case E061 of 2025) [2026] SCC 2 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
19 January 2026
FMF.M. Mulama
254 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The claimant filed a statement of claim dated 6th October 2025 before the Voi Small Claims Court seeking judgment of Kshs.21,300/=. The claimant averred that, at the respondent's request, 30 bags of Simba 50kgs cement worth Kshs.21,300/= were supplied on credit, and that the respondent failed to pay despite numerous demands. The matter came before F.M. Mulama, Adjudicator/RM, apparently as an undefended claim. The court first considered service: on perusal of the claim, the supporting documents and the filed certificate of service, it found the respondent duly served with the claim. The court then examined the documents filed and found that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant had proved the claim against the respondent. Relying on Section 27 of the SCC Act, and noting that service was proper and the claim was supported and proved by the documents attached to it, the court entered default judgment in favour of the claimant against the respondent for the amount claimed. In its disposition, the court allowed the claim contained in the statement of claim dated 6th October 2025 in the sum of Kshs.21,300/= together with costs and interest at court rates, with interest calculated from the date of filing the claim until payment in full. The file was closed and it was so ordered. The judgment was dated and delivered virtually at Voi on 19th January 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of the claim

Holding

The respondent was duly served with the claim, as evidenced by the certificate of service filed.

Reasoning

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.

p. 1
02

Proof of the debt on a balance of probabilities

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 1

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. 1.Default judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent pursuant to Section 27 of the SCC Act
  2. 2.The claim allowed in the sum of Kshs.21,300/= together with costs and interest at court rates
  3. 3.Interest to be calculated from the date of filing the claim until payment in full
  4. 4.The file closed
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Small Claims Court Act (SCC Act)

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.