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 ClaimsDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] SCC 15 (KLR)

Mwakai v Maina t/a Laban Tours and Safaris (Commercial Case E082 of 2025) [2026] SCC 15 (KLR)

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

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a safari commission claim because the claimant had no written or provable agreement showing he was owed anything.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, by a statement of claim dated 11th December 2025, sued the respondent at the Voi Small Claims Court seeking judgment of USD 997.80, being 20% of the total package cost required to initiate a safari booking for three guests who undertook an itinerary between 23rd and 28th October 2025. The claimant asserted that at the respondent's request he prepared and issued booking vouchers to secure accommodation for the guests. The respondent opposed the claim, asserting there was no formal or informal agreement for a 20% commission. He explained that between 25th July and 19th October 2025, while inside a park attending to clients without access to cyber services, he requested the claimant's assistance with limited instructions, and paid the claimant in cash and Mpesa for that work, producing an Mpesa statement. He sought dismissal of the claim and judgment for Kshs.100,000/=. The court framed two issues: whether the claim for USD 997.80 was proved, and who bears costs. The court found no document or communication establishing terms of engagement, held that a contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations, and found the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act. The respondent's Kshs.100,000/= claim was also dismissed for want of proof as it was not addressed in submissions or defence. The claim was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent. Judgment was delivered at Voi on 4th February 2026 by F.M. Mulama, Adjudicator/RM.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim for USD 997.80 as 20% commission was proved

Holding

The claim was not proved; no formal or implied agreement on commission existed

Reasoning

The court found no document or email setting out terms of engagement between the parties. Without evidence of an express or implied agreement, the court could not ascertain the terms or the basis of the claim. The claimant failed to plead or prove when an agreement was made, its terms, or mutual intention to be legally bound. Payment of Kshs.8,450/= was disputed as being for work done or appreciation, and the claimant bore the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, which he failed to discharge.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent's counterclaim of Kshs.100,000/= was proved

Holding

Dismissed for want of proof

Reasoning

Although the respondent asserted a counterclaim of Kshs.100,000/= for work done while inaccessible in the park, he did not address it either in his submissions or his defence. In the absence of proof, the court dismissed the counterclaim as well.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A contract arises only where there is offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations; mere assistance with administrative tasks does not create an implied entitlement to a share of profits
  • He who alleges must prove under section 107 of the Evidence Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11/12/2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The respondent's claim of Kshs.100,000/= is also dismissed for want of proof
  3. 3.Costs are awarded to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court jurisdiction (statement of claim dated 11th December 2025)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwakai v Maina t/a Laban Tours and Safaris (Commercial Case E082 of 2025) [2026] SCC 15 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/15/eng@2026-02-04

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