Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsAllowedNot stated in the judgment (statement of claim dated 6th December 2024)· [2025] SCC 31 (KLR)

Connect 247 Energy Ltd v Karanja (Commercial Case E253 of 2024) [2025] SCC 31 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
14 March 2025
GWGrace Waithĩra
1,985 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan Small Claims Court ruled that fuel invoices, M-pesa records, and an account statement can prove a verbal credit debt even without signatures.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a limited liability company managing the Rubis Kerugoya petrol station, sued the respondent for Kshs. 499,954/- being the balance due for petroleum products allegedly supplied on credit between December 2022 and December 2023. The respondent denied ever purchasing fuel on credit, asserting he made advance payments and never signed any invoices, delivery notes or acknowledgments. The court framed four issues: existence of a credit agreement, supply of the products, indebtedness, and remedies. Applying section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act, the court held it was not bound by strict evidentiary rules. Although there was no written agreement and the respondent had not signed the invoices, the claimant's Client Statement, endorsed by its director and corroborated by invoices and M-pesa and Fortune Sacco payments that tallied with its entries, was found authentic. The respondent's telephone number ending '4477' appeared on the statement, and he admitted remitting payments through it. The court found the Client Statement reflected transactions between the parties, showing goods worth Kshs. 5,500,869/- supplied against payments of Kshs. 5,000,915/-. The respondent, who claimed his drivers remitted receipts evidencing advance payment, produced none of those receipts. The claimant proved its case on a balance of probabilities. Judgment was entered for Kshs. 499,954/- with interest at court rates from filing until payment in full, and costs assessed at Kshs. 60,900/- against the respondent. Execution was stayed for 30 days, with appeal exercisable within 30 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a verbal credit supply agreement existed and whether the respondent was indebted to the claimant

Holding

The claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that there was a verbal credit agreement; the respondent was indebted in the sum of Kshs. 499,954/- as reflected in the Client Statement.

Reasoning

The claimant produced invoices, a Client Statement endorsed by its director, and M-pesa statements whose payments tallied with the statement's entries. The respondent admitted his vehicles were fueled by the claimant and that his phone number appeared on the statement, but produced no receipts to substantiate his claim of advance payments. Strict rules of evidence not applying, the Client Statement was found authentic despite the accountant not testifying.

p. 4
02

Evidentiary threshold applicable in the Small Claims Court

Holding

Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act permits the court to admit credible or trustworthy material not admissible under strict evidentiary rules; the accountant's testimony was therefore not required.

Reasoning

The respondent attacked the Client Statement for lacking signature or approval and because the accountant who prepared it was not called. The court held that strict evidence rules do not bind the Small Claims Court, and since the statement was endorsed by the director and supported by corresponding invoices and M-pesa transactions, it was authentic.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Small Claims Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence and may admit evidence it considers credible or trustworthy.
  • A party asserting facts bears the burden of proving them, and civil claims are proved on a balance of probabilities.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the respondent for a sum of Kshs. 499,954/-
  2. 2.Interest to accrue on the decretal sum at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the suit assessed at Kshs. 60,900/- to be borne by the respondent
  4. 4.Execution of the judgment stayed for 30 days; right of appeal to be exercised within 30 days

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Small Claims Court ActSection 32(1)-(2)
  • Small Claims Court RulesRule 23(4)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions
    (1947) 2 ALL ER 372
Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act (claim filed under the Small Claims Court; judgment delivered per Rule 23(4)(b) of the Small Claims Court Rules)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Connect 247 Energy Ltd v Karanja (Commercial Case E253 of 2024) [2025] SCC 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (statement of claim dated 6th December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/31/eng@2025-03-14

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