Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC v Katumo (Civil Case 179 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 62 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a borrower who cannot disprove a lender's loan statement with documents still owes the claimed debt, even after his vehicle was repossessed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff Ksh. 1,960,376.88/=
Yes, the debt was proven on a balance of probabilities; the unchallenged loan statement was prima facie evidence of the balance owing as at 22/9/2016
The loan statement produced by the plaintiff showed a balance of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/= as at 22/9/2016. The defendant did not challenge its contents in cross-examination or adduce contrary evidence. His Mpesa statement was not disputed or interrogated by the plaintiff, but he failed to demonstrate that the repayments exceeded the loan. The court deprecated the plaintiff's failure to explain its computation but found sufficient material to prove the debt.
Whether the repossession of the motor vehicle was unlawful
The repossession was lawful; the chattels mortgage agreement entitled the plaintiff to repossess upon default without notice or consent, and the authorities relied on by the plaintiff supported such clauses
The defendant admitted signing the loan agreement and was aware he was in default. He took no steps to redeem the vehicle or stop the sale after repossession, and the counter-claim was an afterthought. The Barasa authority relied on by the defendant was distinguishable on its circumstances. Any irregularity in the conduct of the auction did not vitiate the right of repossession, and the defendant did not challenge the auction or allege an undervalue.
Whether the plaintiff owed the defendant any money or should render accounts
No; the defendant failed to discharge his burden of proving a surplus or that the accounts were false
The loan and bank account statements were served with the plaint and the defendant did not interrogate them in cross-examination or point out any surplus. Both parties wrongly assumed the court would audit their accounts. If the defendant believed the accounts were false, he ought to have adduced evidence to that effect. The claim relating to stock and water tanks was unpleaded and unproven.
Legal principles established
#- A loan statement produced by a lender is prima facie evidence of the amount owed and must be rebutted by contrary evidence from the borrower
- Payments must be proven by documentary evidence and not just by word of mouth
- It is not the duty of the court to audit parties' accounts or assist a party in proving its case
- Interest on a liquidated claim should run from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of Ksh. 1,960,376.88/=
- 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree
- 3.The defendant's counter-claim dismissed
- 4.The plaintiff awarded costs of the suit and counter-claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit on a loan agreement (plaint dated 27/6/2019); no specific constitutional or statutory jurisdictional provision invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC v Katumo (Civil Case 179 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 62 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/62/eng@2026-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.