Miruwe v Oguk (Commercial Case E4753 of 2025) [2026] SCC 203 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court ordered a man to refund Kshs. 800,000 for a car he never delivered, even though the purchase agreement was only verbal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant paid Kshs. 800,000/- to the respondent for purchase of the motor vehicle
Yes. The claimant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she transferred Kshs. 801,000/- to the respondent's I&M Bank account in April 2024 for the purchase of a Toyota Mark X, and the pleaded Kshs. 800,000/- was awarded.
The claimant's bank statement showed transfers of Kshs. 145,000/-, 85,000/-, 99,000/- and 472,000/- totaling Kshs. 801,000/- into the respondent's account, which the respondent did not dispute owning. Although the agreement was oral and particulars such as the vehicle's colour were unknown, the respondent's explanation that the funds were channeled to the claimant's mother was unsupported: he did not explain why the claimant would remit the funds to him, and his unclear bank statements, not replaced despite two opportunities, carried no evidential value.
Whether the claimant was entitled to Kshs. 80,000/- as costs of the demand letter
No. The claim for the demand letter costs was denied for lack of evidence.
The claimant sought Kshs. 80,000/- as the cost of a demand letter, but produced no evidence supporting that figure. The court held that costs incidental to the demand letter fall within the general costs of the claim rather than a separate head of damages.
Legal principles established
#- The absence of a written agreement is not fatal where an oral agreement is proved by credible evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
- A court cannot award more than the amount pleaded and proved, even where documentary evidence shows a slightly higher aggregate.
- Where oral figures are inconsistent, determination should be based on documentary evidence properly produced.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant in the sum of Kshs. 800,000/- being the pleaded principal sum, on a balance of probabilities
- 2.Claim for Kshs. 80,000/- being costs of the demand letter denied; such costs to be considered, if at all, as part of the costs of the claim
- 3.The claimant shall have costs of ksh 66,400/- plus interest
- 4.Stay of 30 days is granted
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the claimant's Statement of Claim dated 21st August, 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miruwe v Oguk (Commercial Case E4753 of 2025) [2026] SCC 203 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim dated 21st August, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/203/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.