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 ClaimsDismissedKitale SCC CC. No. E032 of 2024· [2025] SCC 38 (KLR)

Quality Led Africa Ltd v Superbridge Technologies (Commercial Case E16529 of 2024) [2025] SCC 38 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
29 May 2025
TOT.O. Omono
2,062 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

#

Both sides lost a software dispute in Kenya's Small Claims Court because neither proved what the contract actually required.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued for a refund of Kshs. 165,000/= plus 15% interest, alleging the Respondent failed to develop and deliver a website and operating system contracted for at Kshs. 315,000/= by 08th June 2024, having paid the sum as deposit. The Respondent filed a Response and Counterclaim for Kshs. 150,000/= balance, blaming non-completion on the Claimant's director introducing new software and failing to provide website content. The parties consented to proceed under section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act, i.e. on documents only, although the Claimant's list of documents was blank. The court identified the sole issue as who breached the agreement and what remedies follow. It found that neither party produced the terms of engagement or the Respondent's work plan, so the precise contractual obligations, agreed specifications, and consequences of non-completion could not be ascertained. The Respondent's screengrabs of the delivered website could not be evaluated against an absent agreement. No expert report was filed to establish whether the deliverables met specifications, and the court declined to apply its own IT expertise. The court noted oral agreements are enforceable but the evidence was inadequate. Holding that under the section 30 procedure the filed materials must be self-contained, the court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim, ordering each party to bear their own costs, and closed the file.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether either party proved breach of the software development agreement

Holding

Neither party proved their case; neither produced the written terms of engagement or work plan, so the court could not determine the parties' obligations or attribute blame for non-completion

Reasoning

Both the claim and counterclaim were founded on alleged breach of the agreement. However, neither party placed the terms of engagement or the Respondent's work plan before the court, so the court could not ascertain the contractual obligations, the agreed specifications, or the agreed fate of the deposit had the project failed. The Respondent's screengrabs of the website could not be evaluated against an absent agreement, and no expert report was filed to establish whether the deliverables met specifications.

p. 7
02

Whether the court could determine, without expert evidence, whether the delivered website and software met specifications

Holding

The court declined to descend into the arena; without expert evidence it could not determine whether the project met the contracted specifications

Reasoning

The dispute turned on whether the developed website and operating system met the agreed specifications. The court expressly acknowledged it lacks IT expertise and declined to substitute its own technical assessment. Had the matter proceeded by viva voce evidence, it could have summoned an expert under section 19 of the Small Claims Court Act, but under the section 30 documentary procedure the parties bore the consequences of not adducing such evidence.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging breach of contract bears the burden of proving the contractual obligations violated
  • Oral agreements supported by credible evidence are enforceable
  • Where parties elect to proceed by way of section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act, their pleadings and documentary evidence must be self-contained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's Statement of Claim dated 08th October 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Respondent's Counterclaim dated 31st October 2024 is dismissed
  3. 3.Each party to bear their costs
  4. 4.File closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence Act, Cap 80Sections 107(1), 109 and 112
  • Small Claims Court ActSections 30 and 19
  • Law of Contract ActSection 3(3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Gatobu M'ibuutu Karatho v Christopher Muriithi Kubai
    [2014] eKLR
  • Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board
    1990-1994 EA 448
  • Anne Wambui Ndiritu v Joseph Kiprono Ropkoi & Another
    [2005] 1 EA 334
  • Patrick Njuguna Kimondo v Geoffrey Vamba Mbuti
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act (parties consented to determination on documents)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Quality Led Africa Ltd v Superbridge Technologies (Commercial Case E16529 of 2024) [2025] SCC 38 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kitale SCC CC. No. E032 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/38/eng@2025-05-29

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