Integrity Security Group (EA) Ltd v Simiyu t/a Silk Sports Lounge (Civil Suit E013 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 680 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court ordered a client to pay its security firm Kshs. 781,237/= after a written promise to pay backfired, though legal fees were trimmed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Capacity/authority to institute and prosecute suit on behalf of a company
The suit was properly before the court; PW1 and PW2 had authority to testify on behalf of the Plaintiff
The court reviewed Spire Bank, Makupa Transit Shade and Raymark, holding that the strict requirement of a board resolution before a person may testify for a company is no longer good law. PW1 and PW2's witness statements stated they were directors and that PW1 had the Board's authority; this shifted the evidential burden to the Defendant, who led no evidence of lack of authority.
Effect of an unchallenged Statement of Defence
Unsubstantiated defence averments remain mere allegations and are not considered
The Defendant called no witnesses. Relying on Edward Mariga and CMC Aviation, the court held that pleadings are not evidence; unsworn averments unsupported by testimony cannot displace the Plaintiff's evidence, which stood uncontroverted.
Breach of the Security Service Agreement and estoppel
The Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay, and is estopped from disputing the debt after executing the 8th November 2023 undertaking
The Plaintiff proved the undertaking dated 08th November 2023 by which the Defendant promised to settle Kshs. 820,299/= by 15th December 2023. The Defendant led no evidence that the undertaking was not voluntary. Following Awiti, the doctrine of estoppel precluded the Defendant from resiling from the admitted liability.
Recoverability of legal fees for the demand notice
The Kshs. 39,062/= claim for legal fees was disallowed
The Demand Notice showed the claim comprised Kshs. 781,237/= for services and Kshs. 39,062/= legal fees. Applying PJO Otieno J's holding in the Kwendo case, legal fees for a demand letter are awardable at taxation, not as special damages in the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Where a person states in their pleadings or witness statement that they have been authorized to plead or testify for a company, the evidential burden shifts to the party alleging lack of authority to prove it
- A Defendant who fails to call witnesses to substantiate the averments in their Statement of Defence leaves those averments as mere allegations
- A party who undertakes in writing to pay an admitted debt cannot turn around to dispute the debt (estoppel)
- Legal fees for a demand letter are claimable at taxation, not as special damages in the suit
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the Defendant for Kshs. 781,237/=
- 2.The sum of Kshs. 781,237/= to earn interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit till payment in full
- 3.The Plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a contractual claim (Plaint dated 15th January 2025)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Integrity Security Group (EA) Ltd v Simiyu t/a Silk Sports Lounge (Civil Suit E013 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/680/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.