Naiyanoi t/a Erilizton G Suppliers v Gabeire A Group Ltd (Commercial Case E108409 of 2025) [2026] SCC 164 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court ordered a buyer to pay Kshs. 974,000 for building materials after it denied the deal but produced no evidence to challenge the stamped contract.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied building materials to the respondent under a binding agreement and that a balance remains unpaid
Yes. The executed agreement, delivery schedule and proof of payments of Kshs. 900,000/= collectively proved the claim; judgment entered for Kshs. 974,000/=
The claimant produced an agreement dated 12/2/2025 executed by Musa Kamala and bearing the respondent's stamp, a schedule of dust and ballast deliveries consistent with the contract, and proof of payments of Kshs. 900,000/= made by Piyabalo Kamala into the claimant's Equity Bank account. The similarity of surname between signatory and payor, combined with the stamp and executed agreement, provided strong corroboration. The respondent denied the transaction but produced no evidence to disown the Kamalas or challenge the stamp's authenticity, leaving the documentary evidence uncontroverted.
Whether the claimant was entitled to 20% interest on the outstanding balance as claimed
No. The 20% interest was already incorporated in the total contractual sum; further interest would be double recovery. Interest awarded only at court rate from date of judgment
The agreement was for supplies of Kshs. 1,562,000/= plus 20% interest, yielding a total contractual sum of Kshs. 1,874,400/= payable on 15/5/2025. Since the claimant had already factored the 20% interest into the contractual sum it sued upon, awarding a further 20% on the balance would allow double recovery. The court therefore declined the contractual interest claim but granted interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant bears the burden of proving its claim on a balance of probabilities, and he who alleges must prove
- In the absence of evidence impeaching the authenticity of an agreement or the authority of its signatory, the agreement constitutes a binding contract between the parties
- A party who denies a transaction must adduce evidence to disown the person who transacted on its behalf; failure to challenge the authenticity of a stamp on a contract leaves the documentary evidence uncontroverted
- Interest already incorporated in a contractual sum cannot be awarded again as an additional head of interest, as that would amount to double recovery
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 974,000/=
- 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. 10,000/=
- 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, "Naiyanoi t/a Erilizton G Suppliers v Gabeire A Group Ltd (Commercial Case E108409 of 2025) [2026] SCC 164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/164/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.