Maina v Gakobo & another (Civil Case E020 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court awarded tenants Kshs. 329,000 after a landlord leased their paid-for premises to someone else, showing digital payment records win cases.
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 plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the defendant
- 2.Whether the plaintiffs paid the lease price of Kshs. 294,000/=
- 3.Whether the defendant breached the lease agreement
- 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the lease price and cost of valuation
Key legal issues
#Existence and validity of the lease agreement
The court found a valid lease agreement existed between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant
The 1st plaintiff produced a hand-written lease agreement dated 24th December 2023 whereby the defendant agreed to lease premises on land parcel Loc. 8/Matharite/1585 for one year at Kshs. 20,000/= monthly. Its authenticity was not challenged, and it was corroborated by a valuation report confirming the defendant's ownership of the parcel.
Payment of the lease price
Payment of Kshs. 240,000/= by the 2nd plaintiff was proved
The plaintiffs produced an M-pesa statement and an Equity bank account statement showing cumulative payments of Kshs. 240,000/= by the 2nd plaintiff, who explained he paid as the 1st plaintiff is his wife. The transaction reference numbers were captured in the lease agreement signed by the defendant.
Breach of the lease agreement
The defendant was found in breach for failing to deliver vacant possession and instead leasing to third parties
Having proved the agreement and payment, the evidential burden shifted to the defendant to prove he gave vacant possession. The defendant led no evidence to counter the claim that he let the premises to a third party, and failed to prove he performed his part of the bargain.
Entitlement to special damages
Special damages of Kshs. 329,000/= were proved and awarded
The lease price of Kshs. 240,000/= was proved through the M-pesa and bank statements, and the valuation cost of Kshs. 35,000/= was proved by the valuation report and receipt. The court held the plaintiffs proved the damages sought.
Legal principles established
#- Once a plaintiff proves entry into an agreement and payment, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to prove performance of his obligations
- A claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved with a degree of certainty
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the defendant breached the lease agreement dated 24th December 2023
- 2.Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant for a sum of Kshs. 329,000/=
- 3.The plaintiffs shall have the costs of this suit
- 4.Interest shall accrue at court rates from the date of filing suit being, 6th February 2025, until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; suit determined by a Senior Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator under statutory civil jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Alternative prayer for refund of Kshs. 120,000/=
The court instead awarded the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 329,000/= in full, making the alternative refund prayer unnecessary
Costs
The plaintiffs shall have the costs of this suit.
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.
a. A declaration is hereby made that the defendant breached the lease agreement dated 24th December 2023;
b. Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant for a sum of Kshs. 329,000/=
d. Interest shall accrue at court rates from the date of filing suit being, 6th February 2025, until payment in full.
As a general proposition the legal burden of proof lies upon the party who invokes the aid of the law and substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue.
the evidential burden thus shifted to the defendant to prove that he had given the 1st plaintiff vacant possession of the premises
The plaintiffs were not only required to plead their claim for special damages specifically. It was also their duty to prove the claim with a degree of certainty.
Issues in the judgment
#Pleadings state special damages of Kshs. 329,000/= as rent of Kshs. 240,000/= plus valuation cost of Kshs. 35,000/=, which totals Kshs. 275,000/=, and the issues frame the lease price as Kshs. 294,000/=; the figures do not reconcile
The pleadings refer to 'the 1st defendant' although only one defendant is named in the cause
The judgment does not state the names of the parties or the case number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Gakobo & another (Civil Case E020 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/493/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.