Pilot Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Momanyi t/a Soceno Pharmacy (Commercial Case E779 of 2025) [2026] SCC 225 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Small Claims Court dismissed a Kshs. 363,436 debt claim because the supplier couldn't prove who actually owed the money or that goods were delivered.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved its claim for unpaid pharmaceutical supplies on a balance of probabilities
The claim was not proved; the claim was dismissed with costs of Kshs. 45,000/- and interest
The claimant did not produce the invoices and delivery notes underlying its statement of account; no evidence linked the respondent to Soceno Chemist; the payment documents were denied and bore materially inconsistent names, identification numbers and telephone numbers; no handwriting expert, attesting witness or sales person was called. The respondent's bank statement was consistent with his denial. Suspicion could not substitute proof.
Evidential value of a payment plan/acknowledgment document with materially inconsistent identity particulars
The inconsistent names, IDs and telephone numbers on the payment plan prevented the court from finding that the respondent executed it
The document referred to Geoffrey Momanyi of Soceno Chemist and Zodday Geoffrey with differing particulars. Identity was central to its evidentiary value as an acknowledgment of liability; the claimant gave no satisfactory explanation connecting the document to the respondent, leaving uncertainty as to who executed it.
Effect of Small Claims Court's relaxed evidentiary rules on the burden of proof
The relaxation of evidentiary rules does not relieve a claimant of the fundamental obligation to prove its claim on a balance of probabilities
Although Small Claims Court proceedings are intended to be expeditious and the court is not bound by strict evidentiary rules, the claimant still bore the legal burden under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, and failed to discharge it despite the relaxed regime.
Legal principles established
#- Where a debt is not admitted, production of invoices without delivery notes is insufficient to prove a claim for supplied goods
- A statement of account kept in the ordinary course of business is relevant but not conclusive proof of indebtedness and must be assessed together with the underlying transactions
- Once a party specifically denies the execution of a document, the evidential burden lies on the party relying on it to prove execution, including by calling a handwriting expert or attesting witness
- Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof of liability against the particular respondent
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's Statement of Claim dated 24th March, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The respondent is awarded costs of Kshs. 45,000/- and interest
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court jurisdiction over money claims under the Small Claims Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pilot Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Momanyi t/a Soceno Pharmacy (Commercial Case E779 of 2025) [2026] SCC 225 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Statement of Claim dated 24th March, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/225/eng@2026-08-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.