Zenka Digital Limited v Njeru (Claim E97892 of 2025) [2026] SCC 157 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court enforced a mobile loan's principal but threw out 36%-a-month interest charges as unconscionable, awarding modest interest instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved the loan of Kshs. 76,000/=
Proven; the mobile loan application form and proof of disbursement to the respondent's Mpesa account sufficiently proved the loan
The claimant relied on the loan application form and proof of disbursement into the respondent's Mpesa account. The court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the loan was advanced. However, the respondent's assertion of partial repayments failed because no evidence supported it, so no set-off or reduction was allowed.
Whether the interest rates charged were lawful/enforceable
The 36% monthly interest and 1.5% daily default rate were unconscionable and disproportionate; the court declined to enforce them, awarding 18% per annum for two months instead
The 36% monthly rate translated to about 438% per annum and the default rate to about 45% monthly. Invoking the rationale of the in duplum rule, the court held the combined effect would escalate the debt beyond any reasonable relationship to the principal, offending fairness, equity and good conscience, and therefore refused enforcement of those terms.
Whether the respondent made payments reducing the debt
Not proven; the claim of payments was unsupported by evidence
Although the respondent pleaded that several payments had been made and not factored into the claim, no evidence was produced to demonstrate any reduction of the loaned amount. The bare assertion therefore failed, and judgment was entered for the full principal sum advanced.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities
- The burden of proof of a fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence (Evidence Act ss.107-109)
- A court retains discretion to decline enforcement of contractual terms that result in unjust, oppressive or unconscionable outcomes
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 76,000/= being the principal loan amount, plus interest at 18% per annum for a period of two (2) months from 23/9/2024
- 2.The total amount shall attract interest at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full
- 3.The claimant is awarded costs assessed at Kshs. 10,000
- 4.The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30, Small Claims Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zenka Digital Limited v Njeru (Claim E97892 of 2025) [2026] SCC 157 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/157/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.