Muthoni t/a Gramon Enterprises v Murage & another (Commercial Case E14680 of 2025) [2026] SCC 156 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court ruled that WhatsApp messages acknowledging an invoice can prove a debt, even without an official purchase order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved delivery of goods and the unpaid invoice on a balance of probabilities
The claim was proven: the invoice, delivery note and WhatsApp correspondence in which the respondent acknowledged the pending invoice and promised payment established delivery and non-payment on a balance of probabilities.
The court relied on the invoice INV193 dated 23/7/2025, the delivery note dated 21/7/2025 and WhatsApp correspondence in which the invoice was sent and the respondent said he was waiting for a cheque to be signed. The respondent consistently promised settlement and never challenged delivery. Absence of an LPO was not fatal because the standard is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence created sufficient likelihood that the allegations were true.
Whether the absence of an LPO or direct proof of an order defeated the claim
No - the burden was only on a balance of probabilities, so strict proof of an order was not required.
The respondent argued there was no LPO or proof that it ordered the delivery. The court held that the standard of proof under the SCC Act is the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard, so the claimant did not need to strictly prove the claim. The documentary and WhatsApp evidence created a sufficient likelihood that the goods were delivered and the invoice unpaid, and the defence of non-delivery could not stand against that record.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities; the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt.
- He who alleges must prove, as provided for in Sections 107 and 108 of the Small Claims Court Act.
- A defence denying delivery fails where the record shows the pending invoice was acknowledged and payment was consistently promised.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 619,000/=
- 2.The sum shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 40,000/=
- 4.The respondent is granted a 30-day stay of execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act (claim proceeded under Section 30 of the SCC Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muthoni t/a Gramon Enterprises v Murage & another (Commercial Case E14680 of 2025) [2026] SCC 156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/156/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.