Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsPartially AllowedSCC COM NO. E039 OF 2026

Faulu Microfinance Bank Ltd v Mdzomba (Commercial Case E039 of 2026) [2026] SCC 178 (KLR)

Small Claims Court at Voi
22 July 2026
965 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that financial hardship doesn't allow judges to change loan terms — borrowers remain bound by what they signed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Small Claims Court at Voi allowed a debt recovery claim by Faulu Microfinance Bank Ltd against Jackson Mrabu Mdzomba in the sum of Kshs.560,860.66, being the loan balance due as at 30/6/2026. The claimant advanced a loan of Kshs.562,000 to the respondent on his own application, on terms both parties agreed to. The respondent, in a response dated 8th June 2026, did not deny the claim but asked the court to restructure and/or vary the monthly instalments, alleging that newly introduced statutory deductions (SHA, housing levy and NSSF tier) had devastated his payslip. The matter proceeded ex parte but the court, invoking Section 30 of the SCC Act in the interest of justice, considered the respondent's response alongside the claimant's exhibits. Framing three issues - whether the claim was merited, whether it could restructure the loan, and costs - the court held the claim unopposed in principle and therefore merited. On restructuring, it held that parties are bound by their voluntary agreements and a court cannot rewrite a contract absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence, applying National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipe Plastic Samkolit and Matex Commercial Supplies Limited v Euro Bank Ltd. It noted the respondent's difficulties were of his own making, having taken a further loan from Platinum Credit in 2025 despite a shrinking disposable income. The restructuring request was declined; costs and interest at court rates from filing until payment in full were awarded to the claimant.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the claim is merited
  2. 2.Whether the court can vary and/or restructure the loan agreement
  3. 3.Who pays the costs of the claim

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court can vary and/or restructure the loan agreement

Holding

The court cannot rewrite or restructure an agreement voluntarily entered into; absent coercion, fraud or undue influence, its duty is to enforce the agreed terms.

Reasoning

The court held that asking it to restructure the loan was akin to asking it to renegotiate and rewrite a new agreement. Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipe Plastic Samkolit (K) Ltd and Matex Commercial Supplies Limited v Euro Bank Ltd, the duty of the court is to enforce what parties agreed upon. No vitiating factor was pleaded, and the respondent's financial difficulties stemmed from his own further borrowing.

p. 2
02

Whether the claim is merited

Holding

The claim was merited because the respondent did not oppose it in principle, only requesting restructuring.

Reasoning

The respondent's response did not deny the debt; he merely asked the court to restructure instalments due to unforeseen statutory deductions (SHA, housing levy and NSSF tier) shrinking his payslip. Since the principal claim was unopposed, it succeeded, but the restructuring request was declined as contrary to the binding contractual terms.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of law cannot rewrite a contract between the parties; parties are bound by the terms of their contract unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 12/5/2026 is allowed in the sum of Kshs.560,860.66 being the balance due as at 30/6/2026
  2. 2.Costs and interest at court rates from the date of filing until payment in full are awarded to the claimant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

FM
F.M. MulamaAdjudicator
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act (Section 30 considered in the interest of justice on the ex parte hearing)

Relief refused

#

Respondent's request to restructure and/or vary the monthly loan instalments

The court cannot rewrite a contract voluntarily entered into absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence

p. 2

Costs

Costs of the claim awarded to the claimant, together with interest at court rates from the date of filing until payment in full

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

A Court of law cannot re-write a contract between the parties. The parties are bound by the terms of their contract, unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved.
p. 2Sanctity of contract
It is therefore the finding of the court that guided by the decision of the cases I have referred to this court cannot grant the request to restructure and/or vary the terms of the agreement in terms of the monthly instalments. The request is therefore declined.
p. 3Refusal to restructure loan
The claimant's claim contained in the statement of claim dated 12/5/2026 is allowed in the sum of Kshs.560,860.66/= being the balance due as at 30/6/2026.
p. 4Final orders
Costs and interest at court rates from the date of filing until payment in full are awarded to the claimant.
p. 4Costs and interest

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Inconsistent case numbers: the header reads SCC COM NO. E039 OF 2026 while the page footer reads JUDGEMENT VOI SCCOM E020 OF 2026

minor

Judgment contains grammatical/typographical irregularities, e.g. describing statutory deductions as 'introductions'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Faulu Microfinance Bank Ltd v Mdzomba (Commercial Case E039 of 2026) [2026] SCC 178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). SCC COM NO. E039 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/178/eng@2026-07-22

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