Sagoo v Nanak Crankshaft Grinders & 7 others (Civil Appeal 44 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a businessman's Kshs.42 million loan claim because his own letters and audited accounts proved the money was Trust funds, not a personal loan.
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 learned Judge erred in finding that the appellant did not advance a loan to the 1st respondent
- 2.Whether the learned Judge erred in finding that the appellant received £300,000 to hold in trust for the 1st respondent
- 3.Whether the learned Judge failed to consider all the evidence tendered before him
Key legal issues
#Whether the Kshs.42,000,000 transferred to the 1st respondent company was a personal loan advanced by the appellant
The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the monies were not a personal loan from the appellant but Trust funds utilized to rescue the company, grounded on contemporaneous correspondence, audited accounts and the conduct of the parties.
The appellant's own letter of 23rd August 2011 to I & M Bank acknowledged receipt of £300,000 from his grandfather's Trust for the company's facilities. The audited accounts, which the appellant signed as a director, classified the sum as shareholders' loan, and the trial judge's conclusion rested on this documentary trail rather than the appellant's contradictory oral explanations. No basis existed to disturb that factual finding on appeal.
Whether the appellant received £300,000 to hold in trust for the 1st respondent
The Court found no basis to fault the trial court's conclusion that the funds were received from the Khanda Trust for the specific purpose of redeeming the company's indebtedness.
The contemporaneous correspondence of 23rd August 2011 in the appellant's own words confirmed receipt of the funds from the Trust for use in the company's facilities. This linked the monies to repayment of the company's liabilities rather than to an outright personal gift to the appellant, and the appellant's explanation that the Trust reference was a mere formality was unconvincing and unexplained.
Whether the learned Judge failed to consider all the evidence tendered before him
The Court found that the trial Judge evaluated both oral and documentary evidence and preferred the documentary trail and audited accounts over the appellant's contradictory oral explanations.
The impugned judgment specifically addressed the appellant's contention that the monies were a personal gift from his grandmother and contrasted it with the contemporaneous correspondence indicating the funds were intended to repay the company's indebtedness. It also considered that the audited accounts categorized the amount as shareholders' loans. The complaint of misapprehension of evidence was therefore unfounded.
On whom the burden of proof lies where a claimant asserts a loan
The burden lay on the appellant as the party asserting the loan, under section 107(1) of the Evidence Act, and he failed to discharge it.
Citing section 107(1) of the Evidence Act and Halsbury's Laws of England, the Court reiterated that whoever desires a court to give judgment as to a legal right or liability dependent on facts asserted must prove those facts. The legal burden remains constant throughout the trial and rests on the party desiring the court to take action; the appellant failed to establish the loan he asserted.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appeal is by way of retrial: the Court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence afresh and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
- A first appellate court will not normally interfere with a finding of fact by the trial court unless it is based on no evidence, on a misapprehension of the evidence, or the judge demonstrably acted on wrong principles.
- The legal burden of proof rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side, and it remains constant throughout the trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, exercise of appeal by way of retrial under rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Setting aside the High Court judgment and allowing the claim as pleaded in the Plaint
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Kshs.42,000,000 was a personal loan to the company; the funds originated from the Khanda Trust and were applied to repay the company's indebtedness
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th respondents.
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.
In the end, we find that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th respondents.
We, therefore, find no reason to depart from the learned Judge’s conclusion that the monies were not a personal loan from the appellant but rather, Trust funds utilized to rescue the company.
an appeal to this Court from a trial by the High Court is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this Court acts in such an appeal are well settled.
the trial Judge evaluated both the oral and documentary evidence and preferred the documentary trail and audited accounts, over the appellant’s oral and contradictory explanations.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal chronological inconsistency: submissions are dated November and December 2020, the plenary hearing is recorded as 9th February 2026, and the judgment is dated 3rd July 2026, while the memorandum of appeal is dated 7th February 2020 - the record shows a long gap that is not explained within the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sagoo v Nanak Crankshaft Grinders & 7 others (Civil Appeal 44 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1256/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.