Abalo v Kariuki & Kariuki (Commercial Case E101292 of 2025) [2026] SCC 50 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court ordered a landlord to refund a tenant's full Kshs. 40,000 deposit because the landlord could not prove repair costs with receipts or evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were contractually entitled to deduct repainting and repair costs from the security deposit
The lease authorised repainting automatically upon vacation and repair of tenant-caused damage, with costs deductible from the deposit; however, the respondents had to prove the actual costs incurred.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the lease provided that on termination the landlord would repaint the house and repair tenant-related damage, deducting costs from the security deposit. Repainting was found to be automatic and not dependent on tenant-caused damage, so the claimant could not avoid reasonable repainting costs. But the agreement fixed no sum, so actual or reasonable cost had to be demonstrated, which was not done.
Whether the respondents proved the repair and repainting costs of Kshs. 52,577/= claimed in the counter-claim
The counter-claim failed in its entirety; the costs were special damages that were not strictly proved, and the self-generated statement of account lacked credibility.
There was no evidence of the claimed shower mixer damage: no photographs, receipts, or inspection report shared with the claimant. The list of paints and items was prepared by the respondents themselves, unsupported by receipts, and six different paint types were unrealistic for standard repainting. Labour charges of Kshs. 12,000/= were also unproven. The court declined to award an arbitrary figure lacking evidentiary support.
Whether the respondents could lawfully withhold the claimant's Kshs. 40,000/= deposit
There was no lawful justification to withhold the deposit, and judgment was entered for the claimant for the full amount.
Since the counter-claim for repairs and repainting was not proved and the contractual justification for deductions failed on the evidence, there was no lawful basis to retain the deposit. It was uncontested that the claimant paid a Kshs. 40,000/= deposit and vacated after issuing notice.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities.
- Claims for quantified repair and repainting expenditure are special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a court cannot speculate or substitute evidence where actual expenditure is not proved.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent for Kshs. 40,000/= being the full security deposit
- 2.The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 8,000/=
- 3.The respondents' counter-claim is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 4.The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Act, Section 30 (matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abalo v Kariuki & Kariuki (Commercial Case E101292 of 2025) [2026] SCC 50 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/50/eng@2026-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.