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 ClaimsPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] SCC 49 (KLR)

Mensah v Kabuga (Commercial Claim E97099 of 2025) [2025] SCC 49 (KLR)

Small Claims Court (Adjudicator), Bungoma
9 October 2025
TOT.O. Omono
612 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Kwesi Mensah, sued by a Statement of Claim dated 2nd July 2025, seeking judgment of Kshs. 369,333/= plus additional compensation of 50% - 100% of capital invested. He pleaded that on 29th January 2025 he shared job opportunities for 10-15 security guards in Dubai with the Respondent and agreed to process visas at 3,500 AED per successful visa; he processed three visas for named individuals but was not paid. The Respondent did not enter appearance or file a response despite due service, so the matter proceeded to formal proof. The Claimant adopted his witness statement and produced his documents; CW2, Ibrahim Sulah Luyali, testified that he sent Kshs. 410,000/= to the Respondent's M-Pesa number and was aware the Respondent had defrauded the Claimant of Kshs. 370,000/=. Applying sections 107(1) and 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held that the Claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent owed him Kshs. 369,333/= for the three processed visas. However, the Claimant adduced no evidence supporting the claim for additional compensation of 50% - 100% of capital invested, and that head of relief was refused. Judgment was entered for Kshs. 369,333/= with interest at court rates from the date of filing, costs assessed at Kshs. 10,000/=, with a certificate of costs and decree to issue and the file closed. Judgment was delivered at Bungoma on 9th October 2025 by T.O. Omono, Adjudicator.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant proved the debt of Kshs. 369,333/= on a balance of probabilities

Holding

Proved - evidence established the Respondent owes the Claimant for three successfully processed visas

Reasoning

The court applied sections 107(1) and 109 of the Evidence Act, holding the burden on the Claimant as the party asserting the claim. On formal proof, the Claimant's testimony and documents established that he processed three visas at an agreed cost, and that the Respondent failed to pay. The court found the debt of Kshs. 369,333/= proved on a balance of probabilities.

p. 2
02

Whether the Claimant was entitled to additional compensation of 50% - 100% of capital invested

Holding

Not proved; the claim for additional compensation failed for want of evidence

Reasoning

Although the matter proceeded to formal proof specifically to prove this head of compensation, the Claimant led no evidence establishing a legal or factual basis for the 50% - 100% of capital invested remedy. The court therefore declined to award it, limiting judgment to the proved principal sum.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The legal burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, per section 107(1) of the Evidence Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 369,333/=
  2. 2.Interest at court rate on Kshs. 369,333/= from the date of filing the claim until payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the claim to the Claimant assessed at Kshs. 10,000/=
  4. 4.Certificate of costs and decree to issue
  5. 5.File closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence Actsection 107(1)
  • Evidence Actsection 109
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court under the Small Claims Court Act (claim for Kshs. 369,333/= within the court's pecuniary jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mensah v Kabuga (Commercial Claim E97099 of 2025) [2025] SCC 49 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/49/eng@2025-10-09

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