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 judgment

Naaman Muses & Co Limited v Mwangela t/a Huruma Shop Werugha (Commercial Case E001 of 2026) [2026] SCC 4 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
5 February 2026
FMF.M. Mulama
762 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Voi court awarded a supplier Kshs.64,263 in unpaid credit debt because the buyer couldn't prove the amount was wrong.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant supplied goods on credit to the respondent and, after partial payments, claimed an outstanding balance. As at 25th November 2025 the balance stood at Kshs.184,263.70. The claimant later received further payments of Kshs.50,000 and Kshs.70,000, reducing the claim to Kshs.64,263.70. The respondent, responding partly on a without prejudice basis, admitted making the two payments but asserted they were made voluntarily in an effort to amicably settle the matter, and contended without demonstrating how that the claimant's computation of the debt was inaccurate. The matter proceeded by way of Section 30 of the SCC Act, on documents and submissions. The court framed two issues: whether the claim was proved, and who bears costs. Applying Section 107 of the Evidence Act, the Adjudicator held that he who alleges must prove; the respondent, having alleged that the sums were inaccurately computed, failed to point out any exaggerations, demonstrate the correct figures, or challenge the invoices the claimant produced. The court noted the respondent's without prejudice acknowledgment of the debt and proposed payment plan but made no finding on it. The claim was held proved, judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of Kshs.64,263.70, and costs were awarded to the claimant. Judgment was delivered at Voi Small Claims Court on 5th February 2026 by F.M. Mulama, Adjudicator/RM.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the claim for Kshs.64,263/= has been proved.
  2. 2.Who bears costs of the claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim for the outstanding balance was proved

Holding

The claim was proved; the respondent failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that the claimant's computation was inaccurate.

Reasoning

The respondent did not deny the claim outright but merely asserted, without evidence, that the amounts were inaccurately computed. He failed to show what the correct computation would be and did not challenge the invoices attached by the claimant. Under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay on him to prove the facts he asserted, which he failed to do. The claimant's claim was therefore proved to the required standard.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • He who alleges must prove; a party challenging the accuracy of a computation must demonstrate the correct figures.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 5/1/2026 is allowed in the sum of Kshs.64,263.70/=.
  2. 2.Costs are awarded to the claimant.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

FM
F.M. MulamaAdjudicator/RM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act (Section 30 SCC Act)

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 claimant’s claim contained in the statement of claim dated 5/1/2026 is allowed in the sum of Kshs.64,263.70/=.
p. 2Final order - claim allowed
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
p. 2Burden of proof - Section 107 Evidence Act
The respondent has not in any way demonstrated how inaccurate the computation by the claimant is.
p. 2Failure to discharge burden of proof

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment dates a payment instalment as 8/12/2025 and the outstanding balance 'as at 25th November 2025', while counsel reported further payment on 28/1/2026; internal dating is inconsistent.

minor

Recurrent typographical errors including 'efiort' for 'effort' and 'om' for 'on'.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Naaman Muses & Co Limited v Mwangela t/a Huruma Shop Werugha (Commercial Case E001 of 2026) [2026] SCC 4 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/4/eng@2026-02-05

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