Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsDismissedSCCE106997 OF 2025

Makori (Suing as Administrator Legal Representative of Clinton Sikweya Nyangau Deceased) v Oeri (Commercial Case E106997 of 2025) [2026] SCC 221 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
14 August 2026
GKGladys W. Kiamah
779 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi Small Claims Court dismissed a refund claim because the claimant couldn't prove, with proper evidence, exactly how much money reached the person he sued.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, acting for his late son, engaged the respondent in November 2024 to facilitate the son's employment and travel documentation for Dubai. He claimed to have paid Kshs. 148,600/= and, after his son's demise in May 2025, sought a refund; the respondent refunded only Kshs. 31,250/=, leaving Kshs. 116,750/= outstanding. The respondent denied receiving Kshs. 148,600/=, admitting only Kshs. 44,000/= for medical examinations, certificate of good conduct authentication and embassy attestation, with the balance paid directly to Diplink Company Limited for visa and ticket processing; after deducting expenses he refunded the unutilized Kshs. 31,250/=. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act. The Adjudicator applied the balance of probabilities standard, citing Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act and Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira. The claimant's MPESA statements did not show Kshs. 148,600/= being sent directly to the respondent. The respondent's evidence of receiving Kshs. 44,000/= was corroborated by MPESA records, and documentary evidence (medical reports, passport particulars, an employment visa in the deceased's name) showed travel arrangements had substantially progressed. Correspondence from the respondent's advocate confirmed Kshs. 100,000/= was deposited with Diplink Limited and that Kshs. 31,250/= was refunded. The court found the failure to travel was not attributable to any breach by the respondent. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant proved payment of Kshs. 148,600/= to the respondent and an outstanding debt of Kshs. 116,750/=

Holding

The claim was not proven on a balance of probabilities; evidence showed the respondent received only Kshs. 44,000/=, which he refunded alongside other sums, and travel documentation had substantially progressed

Reasoning

The claimant produced MPESA statements but no evidence that Kshs. 148,600/= was paid directly to the respondent. The respondent's evidence was consistent that he received only Kshs. 44,000/=, corroborated by MPESA records. Documentary evidence, including a visa issued in the deceased's name and correspondence from the respondent's advocate, showed travel arrangements had progressed and that Kshs. 31,250/= was refunded. The failure to travel was not attributable to the respondent.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities, and he who alleges must prove

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 30 of the Small Claims Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makori (Suing as Administrator Legal Representative of Clinton Sikweya Nyangau Deceased) v Oeri (Commercial Case E106997 of 2025) [2026] SCC 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). SCCE106997 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/221/eng@2026-08-14

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