Mwakai v Maina t/a Laban Tours and Safaris (Commercial Case E082 of 2025) [2026] SCC 15 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a safari commission claim because the claimant had no written or provable agreement showing he was owed anything.
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 for USD 997.80 has been proved
- 2.Who bears costs of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim for USD 997.80 as 20% commission was proved
The claim was not proved; no formal or implied agreement on commission existed
The court found no document or email setting out terms of engagement between the parties. Without evidence of an express or implied agreement, the court could not ascertain the terms or the basis of the claim. The claimant failed to plead or prove when an agreement was made, its terms, or mutual intention to be legally bound. Payment of Kshs.8,450/= was disputed as being for work done or appreciation, and the claimant bore the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which he failed to discharge.
Whether the respondent's counterclaim of Kshs.100,000/= was proved
Dismissed for want of proof
Although the respondent asserted a counterclaim of Kshs.100,000/= for work done while inaccessible in the park, he did not address it either in his submissions or his defence. In the absence of proof, the court dismissed the counterclaim as well.
Legal principles established
#- A contract arises only where there is offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations; mere assistance with administrative tasks does not create an implied entitlement to a share of profits
- He who alleges must prove under section 107 of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11/12/2025 is dismissed
- 2.The respondent's claim of Kshs.100,000/= is also dismissed for want of proof
- 3.Costs are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court jurisdiction (statement of claim dated 11th December 2025)
Relief refused
#Judgment in the sum of USD 997.80
Claimant failed to prove the contract and burden of proof on balance of probabilities
Respondent's counterclaim of Kshs.100,000/= for work done
Not addressed in submissions or defence; want of proof
Costs
Costs are awarded to the respondent.
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.
It is trite law that a contract can only arise where there is an ofier, acceptance, consideration, and a clear intention to create legal relations between the parties to the agreement.
Mere assistance with administrative tasks did not give rise to an implied entitlement to a share of profits.
the claim for USD 997.80 has not been proved to a balance of probabilities and is ripe for dismissal.
The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11/12/2025 is dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties; only roles (claimant/respondent) are used
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwakai v Maina t/a Laban Tours and Safaris (Commercial Case E082 of 2025) [2026] SCC 15 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/15/eng@2026-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.