Makori (Suing as Administrator Legal Representative of Clinton Sikweya Nyangau Deceased) v Oeri (Commercial Case E106997 of 2025) [2026] SCC 221 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court dismissed a refund claim because the claimant couldn't prove, with proper evidence, exactly how much money reached the person he sued.
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 claimant has proven the claim as against the respondent, i.e. that the respondent received Kshs. 148,600/= and remains indebted in Kshs. 116,750/=
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved payment of Kshs. 148,600/= to the respondent and an outstanding debt of Kshs. 116,750/=
The claim was not proven on a balance of probabilities; evidence showed the respondent received only Kshs. 44,000/=, which he refunded alongside other sums, and travel documentation had substantially progressed
The claimant produced MPESA statements but no evidence that Kshs. 148,600/= was paid directly to the respondent. The respondent's evidence was consistent that he received only Kshs. 44,000/=, corroborated by MPESA records. Documentary evidence, including a visa issued in the deceased's name and correspondence from the respondent's advocate, showed travel arrangements had progressed and that Kshs. 31,250/= was refunded. The failure to travel was not attributable to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities, and he who alleges must prove
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Act
Relief refused
#Judgment for Kshs. 116,750/= against the respondent
Claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent received Kshs. 148,600/= or remained indebted in Kshs. 116,750/=
Costs
Each party shall bear their own 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.
The upshot is that the claim is hereby dismissed.
Given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of the deceased and the relationship between the parties, each party shall bear their own costs.
The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities.
It is also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the respondent agreed to refund following the son's demise in May 2025 and claim filed 13/11/2025, but the deliverance date (14 August 2026) postdates submissions dated 13/4/2026; no internal contradiction found
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makori (Suing as Administrator Legal Representative of Clinton Sikweya Nyangau Deceased) v Oeri (Commercial Case E106997 of 2025) [2026] SCC 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). SCCE106997 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/221/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.