Washike v Jivanjee (Commercial Case E025 of 2025) [2026] SCC 10 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan Small Claims Court dismissed a Kshs.13,500 repair claim because the claimant could not prove the alleged agreement or actual payment.
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 claim is meritorious
- 2.What orders can issue in the circumstances
- 3.Who bears costs of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether there was an agreement between the parties for replacement of the television screen with a new one
No evidence of any agreement to replace the screen was established; the alleged agreement was oral and unsupported
The claimant asserted an oral telephone agreement to replace the screen after it blew up, but the respondent denied any such agreement. The alleged agreement was oral with no material to confirm it. The receipt produced was not supported by an Mpesa message showing the actual payment, and the claimant's own figures were internally inconsistent, treating the Kshs.6,000/= paid for the first repair as a deduction from a second, distinct transaction.
Whether the claimant proved payment of Kshs.19,500/= for the second repair
The claimant failed to prove incurring the Kshs.19,500/= since the receipt was not supported by an Mpesa message evidencing payment
The receipt dated 07/04/2025 from Stepper Tech electronics indicated a cost of Kshs.19,500/= but no Mpesa message was attached to demonstrate the payment was actually made. The court also found it implausible, in the ordinary course of business, that a service provider called out a second time for a distinct service would absorb the cost. The claimant's inconsistent accounting of the Kshs.6,000/= further undermined the claim.
Standard of proof applicable to the claim
The claim failed as it was not proved on a balance of probabilities
Applying the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, the court found the claimant had not discharged the evidential burden, both as to the existence of the alleged oral agreement and as to the actual payment claimed, and therefore no orders could issue.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging an oral agreement must adduce corroborating evidence to prove it on a balance of probabilities
- Payments made for a first, distinct repair service cannot be re-characterised as part-payment towards a second, separate service without evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 18th November 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- 2.Let the file be closed forthwith.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court Act (original small claims jurisdiction); no specific provision cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Claim of Kshs.13,500/= being cost of replacement of a television screen
The claim was not proved on a balance of probabilities; no evidence of an agreement to replace the screen and no Mpesa message corroborating the payment
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the claim; claim dismissed with no orders as to costs.
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.
there is no evidence of any agreement between the claimant and the respondent as to the replacement of the screen and as such I find and hold in similar terms
there should have been other corroborating evidence in support such as the mpesa message showing the actual payment being made that led to the issuance of the receipt
the claim by the claimant has not been proved on a balance of probabilities and as such no orders in the claim can issue
The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 18th November 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's opening paragraph and body give inconsistent figures for the claimed amount (Kshs.13,500/= claimed versus total cost of Kshs.19,500/= discussed)
Judgment dated 20th January 2026 but statement of claim is dated 18th November 2025; no cause number appears in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Washike v Jivanjee (Commercial Case E025 of 2025) [2026] SCC 10 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated (statement of claim dated 18th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/10/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.