Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 14th May, 2025 (in an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate's court)· [2025] KEELRC 2070 (KLR)

Patriotic Group of Companies Ltd v Sewe & 15 others (Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2070 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 July 2025
1,660 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Kisumu dismissed a debtor's application because she could not prove she had actually paid the judgment debt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, who had appealed against a Magistrate's court judgment in favour of the respondents, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 14th May 2025 seeking to have the appeal marked as settled upon unconditional release of two attached motor vehicles, KBP 989N and KCE 359N, with police supervision of the release, and costs. The applicant deposed that on 15th April 2025 it paid the decretal sum of Kshs.809,594. The respondents opposed, asserting that only Kshs.600,000 had been paid, leaving Kshs.209,594 outstanding; that one of three cheques issued to the auctioneer was dishonoured; and that storage charges at Pangani Auction Centre continued to accrue. The court observed that this was the applicant's fourth application in a series in which it had repeatedly failed to deposit security. It found the applicant's proof of payment wanting: a letter asserting a bank deposit was unaccompanied by any bank statement, deposit slip or transfer evidence, and a hand-discounted auctioneer's fee note was supported only by post-dated cheques, one of which had been dishonoured. Relying on Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and authorities on the civil standard of proof, the court held that a cheque is not evidence of payment until honoured and that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proving payment of the decretal sum, auctioneer's fees and storage charges. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proving payment

Holding

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities

Reasoning

The applicant asserted it had paid the decretal sum of Kshs.809,594 but produced only a letter, no bank statement, deposit slip or transfer evidence. Cheques issued to the auctioneer were not all honoured, and one was dishonoured. Storage charges were still accruing. The court held that payment via bank account or cheque leaves a definite documentary trail which the applicant did not produce.

p. 4
02

Whether a cheque constitutes evidence of payment

Holding

A cheque is not evidence of payment until honoured by the drawee bank

Reasoning

The applicant relied on three post-dated cheques of Kshs.50,000 each in favour of the auctioneer, only one of which had been honoured and one dishonoured. The court held that a cheque is neither legal tender nor evidence of payment until actually paid by the drawee bank, so the cheques could not establish settlement of the fees.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A cheque is neither legal tender nor evidence of payment until honoured by the drawee bank
  • He who alleges bears the burden of proof (Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act)
  • Mere averments do not amount to evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th May, 2025 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Sections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 and 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Evidence ActSections 107 and 109
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48

Cases cited (6)

  • Suleiman Kasuti Murunga V IEBC & 2 others [1918] eKLR
    [1918] eKLR
  • Sagala V Sagala [2024] KEHC 5573 (KLR)
    [2024] KEHC 5573 (KLR)
  • Hellen Wangari Wangechi V Carumera Muthini Gathua [2005] eKLR
    [2005] eKLR
  • Miller V Minister of Pension [1942] 2 ALLER 372
    [1942] 2 ALLER 372
  • James Muniu Mucheru V National Bank of Kenya [2019] eKLR
    [2019] eKLR
  • CMC Aviation Ltd V Crusair Ltd [978] KLR 103 [1976-80] KLR 835
    [978] KLR 103 [1976-80] KLR 835
On appeal from
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patriotic Group of Companies Ltd v Sewe & 15 others (Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2070 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 14th May, 2025 (in an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate's court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2070/eng@2025-07-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.