Miring’u t/a Remic Electronics & Hardware v Kamau (Civil Case E071 of 2025) [2026] SCC 3 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan trader lost a proven Kshs.337,775 debt claim because the lawsuit was filed too late and no dated acknowledgement or part-payment was proved to reset the clock.
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 Respondent is liable to pay Kshs.337,775/=.
- 2.Who bears costs of the claim.
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was liable to pay Kshs.337,775/= for electrical appliances supplied on credit
The claimant proved the debt through the invoices, and the respondent failed to prove payment, but the claim was dismissed as statute barred.
The court accepted the claimant's explanation for invoices bearing two dates as a cost-saving measure for interval purchases. It found the invoices proved the debt. The respondent produced no receipts to substantiate his assertion that he had paid everything. However, the invoices dated from May to December 2019 while the claim was filed on 28/10/2025, placing parts of the claim outside the limitation period.
Whether section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act saved the claim from limitation
The claimant failed to prove the date of any acknowledgement or part-payment, so time could not be recomputed under section 23(3).
The court acknowledged that acknowledgement or part-payment restarts limitation under section 23(3). But the claimant produced no evidence of when any acknowledgement or part-payment occurred, making computation of time on that basis impossible. Comparing invoice dates (25/5/2019 to 5/12/2019) with the filing date of 28/10/2025, the court held claims arising after November 2019 were barred, and since the claim was filed as a whole, it dismissed it entirely.
Who bears costs of the claim
Costs were awarded to the respondent as the successful party who strenuously defended the claim.
Applying the principle that costs follow events, the court found that although the claim was proved in principle, it failed on limitation, and the respondent successfully defended it. The respondent was therefore awarded costs of the claim.
Legal principles established
#- Acknowledgement or part-payment restarts limitation under section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act, but the debtor's acknowledgement or part-payment must be proved with evidence of its date before time can be recomputed.
- A claimant who proves supply of goods on credit by invoices establishes the debt, but a defendant asserting payment must produce proof such as receipts.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 28/10/2025 is wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed on account of being statute barred.
- 2.The costs of the claim are awarded to the respondent.
- 3.Let the file be closed forthwith.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Act (original jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court; claim for Kshs.337,775/= within the statutory limit)
Relief refused
#Claim for Kshs.337,775/= for electrical appliances supplied on credit
The claim was partially statute barred and the court found it could not be salvaged; it was dismissed in its entirety.
Costs
The costs of the claim are awarded to the respondent.
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.
The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 28/10/2025 is wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed on account of being statute barred.
The costs of the claim are awarded to the respondent.
There is no evidence on record to show and/or demonstrate the date and month when the debtor acknowledged the debt and/or made part payment and in the absence of such crucial evidence it is not possible for this court to compute time pursuant to the said section.
in the absence of such proof it cannot be said that the debt was paid in full.
the claim is partially statute barred and as to that extend I agree with the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction: the court finds the claimant proved the debt yet describes the claim as 'wholly without merit' in the final orders.
The court acknowledges the claim is only partially statute barred but dismisses the entire claim, including amounts arguably within time, without quantifying the barred portion.
The statement of claim is dated 28/10/2025 and the judgment delivered 29 January 2026, yet invoices date from 2019 - the judgment does not state the applicable limitation period relied upon.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miring’u t/a Remic Electronics & Hardware v Kamau (Civil Case E071 of 2025) [2026] SCC 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/3/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.