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 ClaimsPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2026] SCC 91 (KLR)

New Milimani Sacco Limited v Arifa Enterprises Solutions (Claim E29248 of 2025) [2026] SCC 91 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
3 July 2026
GKGladys W. Kiamah
1,125 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi Small Claims Court ordered a tech vendor to refund Kshs 544,850 because it had no documents proving it completed the Sacco system it was paid to deliver.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued for Kshs. 544,850/= being the balance of a deposit of Kshs. 704,850/= paid under a contract dated 24/11/2021 for installation of a Sacco Management System, after the respondent failed to deliver and the claimant terminated by notice dated 20/2/2023. The respondent denied liability, asserting it substantially completed and deployed the system, blamed the claimant for delays, and counter-claimed for Kshs. 455,150/= as the unpaid contract balance, alleging the Kshs. 160,000/= it had refunded was extracted under duress. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act on the filed statements and documents. The court applied the balance-of-probabilities standard and the burden-of-proof provisions of the Evidence Act, and relied on Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda. It found the contract, the deposit, and the non-delivery by the 28/2/2022 deadline undisputed, and held the respondent produced no completion certificates, acceptance documents, invoices or correspondence to prove performance, and that its admitted partial refunds were inconsistent with completed works or any arrears. The duress allegation was unsupported and dismissed as mere assertion. Judgment was entered for the claimant for Kshs. 544,850/= with interest at court rate from the date of judgment, fixed costs of Kshs. 35,000/=, and the counter-claim was dismissed with no orders as to costs. The respondent was granted 30 days stay of execution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant proved non-delivery of the Sacco Management System and entitlement to refund of the unpaid deposit balance

Holding

Claim proven; the contract was not delivered by the deadline, the claimant lawfully terminated, and the respondent's partial refunds confirmed non-performance, leaving Kshs. 544,850/= due

Reasoning

The contract of 24/11/2021 and the deposit of Kshs. 704,850/= were not contested. The respondent was to deliver by 28/2/2022 but the email of 20/2/2023 showed the project remained pending, justifying termination. The respondent produced no completion certificates, acceptance documents or invoices, and its admitted refund of Kshs. 160,000/= was inconsistent with full performance. Allegations of duress were unsupported by evidence.

p. 3
02

Whether the respondent's counter-claim for Kshs. 455,150.00 was proven

Holding

Counter-claim dismissed; the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving completion of works and any arrears

Reasoning

The respondent alleged substantial completion and blamed the claimant for delays, but produced no evidence: no completion certificates, acceptance documents, invoices or correspondence, and made no demand for balances. Its conduct in refunding Kshs. 160,000/= was inconsistent with its assertion that the claimant owed it the contract balance, and the duress allegation was a mere assertion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities
  • The burden of proving a fact rests on the party who wishes the court to believe in its existence
  • A party alleging completion of contractual works must adduce documentary evidence such as completion certificates, acceptance documents, invoices or correspondence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent for Kshs. 544,850/= plus interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
  2. 2.Claimant awarded costs of Kshs. 35,000/=
  3. 3.Respondent's counter-claim dismissed with no orders as to costs
  4. 4.Respondent awarded 30 days stay of execution

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • The Small Claims Court ActSection 30
  • Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of KenyaSections 107, 108 and 109

Cases cited (2)

  • Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "New Milimani Sacco Limited v Arifa Enterprises Solutions (Claim E29248 of 2025) [2026] SCC 91 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/91/eng@2026-07-03

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