Kiarie v Moya (Commercial Case E98128 of 2025) [2026] SCC 220 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court awarded Kshs. 80,000 for an unpaid phone trade-in and a PlayStation refund, but refused expenses claimed without receipts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the balance of Kshs. 55,000/= arising from the phone trade-in transaction remained outstanding
Yes - the transaction was admitted and proven by the transfer of ownership document; the respondent's assertion of cash repayment was unproven.
The respondent admitted the trade-in and that Kshs. 55,000/= became due. He alleged subsequent cash payment but produced no receipt, acknowledgement, correspondence or witness evidence. Since the burden of proving payment rested on him, the court found the full balance of Kshs. 55,000/= remained outstanding.
Whether the claimant proved entitlement to refund of monies paid for the PlayStation 5 which was later subject of a police complaint
Partly - refund of Kshs. 25,000/= proved on a balance of probabilities, not Kshs. 30,000/= claimed.
MPESA records showed payments totaling Kshs. 25,000/= to the respondent, with the balance of the consideration offset against the earlier debt. An Occurrence Book extract supported the police complaint, which the respondent did not dispute. Having parted with value for a console later subject of a criminal complaint, the refund of the proven Kshs. 25,000/= was justified.
Whether the claimant proved Kshs. 35,000/= in expenses incurred following police investigations
No - the claim failed for want of strict proof of special damages.
Special damages require strict proof. The claimant neither particularized the alleged expenditure nor produced receipts, invoices or any documentary evidence demonstrating the costs incurred. The claim therefore failed for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities.
- The burden of proving payment rests upon the party alleging payment.
- Special damages must be strictly proved by particularization and documentary evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 80,000/=
- 2.The amount shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.The claimant is awarded costs of the suit assessed at Kshs. 8,000/=
- 4.The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiarie v Moya (Commercial Case E98128 of 2025) [2026] SCC 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). SCCE98128 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/220/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.