Hassan v Dore (Commercial Case E99417 of 2025) [2026] SCC 63 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court ordered a car seller to refund Kshs. 737,504 because payments were proven with documents and the seller's illegality defence had no evidence behind it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved the claimed amount of Kshs. 737,504.00
The claim was proven: the executed sale agreement and documentary proof of payments showed the claimant paid Kshs. 737,504/= and the vehicle was never delivered, making the sums recoverable.
The claimant produced a car sale agreement executed by both parties, providing for sale of a Mercedes Benze for Kshs. 1,300,957/=, reflecting Kshs. 737,504/= paid and a balance of Kshs. 563,453/=. The respondent did not denounce the agreement. Delivery by 30/5/2025 or refund the same day did not occur, and documentary proof of payments existed. Applying the balance of probabilities standard and Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, the court found the sums paid recoverable in the absence of delivery.
Whether the agreement was an illegal contract under the DDE program as contended by the respondent
The allegation of illegality failed for want of proof; the defence could not succeed on a mere allegation.
The respondent claimed the vehicle was to be imported under the Disability Duty Exemption program rendering the contract illegal, but produced no evidence such as correspondence or import documents supporting that allegation for the specified vehicle. The agreement itself contained no such provision. Applying Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda, the party bearing the burden must adduce evidence of sufficient quality; the respondent failed to discharge it, so the illegality defence remained a mere allegation.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities
- The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact, and where the evidence is evenly balanced or insufficient, that party fails
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 737,504.00/= plus interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 2.Claimant awarded costs of Kshs. 40,000/=
- 3.Respondent awarded 30 days stay of execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hassan v Dore (Commercial Case E99417 of 2025) [2026] SCC 63 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/63/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.