Paddy (k) Limited v One Petroleum Limited

5. The Appellant contended that the appeal raised several issues, principally whether the trial court had jurisdiction, whether the defence disclosed triable issues, whether there was a breach of contract as to the quality and quantity of diesel supplied, and whether the matter was determined on technicalities rather than substantive justice. It was argued that the burden of proof lay on the Respondent, in line with sections 107–109 of the Evidence Act. 6. On jurisdiction, the Appellant relied on Samuel Kamau Macharia v KCB [2012] eKLR to submit that jurisdiction fiows from the Constitution or statute and that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. The Appellant further argued that its defence raised bona fide triable issues stating that a triable issue need not ultimately succeed, but only requires interrogation at a full trial. 7. It was submitted that the Respondent breached the supply arrangement by delivering adulterated diesel, failing to meet agreed quality and quantity standards, refusing to engage a quality expert, failing to provide quality reports, and failing or delaying delivery, thereby grounding the Appellant’s trucks. The Appellant maintained that these issues were raised both in the defence and in a replying affidavit, and were not considered by the trial court. 8. In conclusion, the Appellant submitted that it had raised bona fide triable issues, that the matter ought to have been determined on merit, and urged the court to allow the appeal and grant the prayers sought in the memorandum of appeal. Respondent’s Case 9. The Respondent opposed the suit through written submissions dated 25th July 2025. 10. The Respondent submitted that its claim against the Appellant at the lower court was for liquidated sums and was fully supported by documentary evidence, including local purchase orders, invoices, statements, dishonoured cheques, and correspondence acknowledging the debt. The Respondent contended that the burden therefore shifted to the Appellant to demonstrate a bona fide defence warranting a full trial. 11. It was submitted that the Appellant failed to discharge this burden. The alleged supply agreement was neither annexed nor particularized. Claims of poor quality and lesser quantity of diesel were vague, unsupported, and inconsistent, with no clarification as to whether the entire or only part of the debt was disputed. The assertion that cheques were recalled due to non-delivery was similarly unparticularized and contradicted by undisputed emails acknowledging the dishonoured cheques and seeking indulgence to pay. 12. The Respondent contended that the Appellant’s defence amounted to mere general traverses and denials, which do not constitute a reasonable defence in a claim for a liquidated demand. No coherent, consistent, or evidentially supported defence was disclosed. 13. The Respondent therefore submitted that no bona fide triable issues arose and that the appeal lacked merit and ought to be dismissed. Analysis and determination 14. Having duly considered the record of appeal and the submissions filed by the parties, I find that the sole issue for determination is whether the Respondent’s application dated 25th May 2023 for summary judgment was justified. 15. The principles governing summary judgment were stated in the case of Crown Health Care v Jamu Imaging Centre Limited [2021] eKLR, where the court held that Order 36 of the Civil Procedure https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1086/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 5

Rules permits a claimant seeking a liquidated sum to move the court for summary determination. Once such an application was supported by evidence, the evidential burden shifted to the opposing party to demonstrate, by affidavit or otherwise, the existence of a bona fide defence raising triable issues. The court emphasized that leave to defend would only be granted where a defendant disclosed a genuine and arguable defence. 16. In the present matter, the application for summary judgment was grounded on a liquidated claim and was supported by documentary evidence, including local purchase orders, invoices, statements of account, dishonoured cheques, and correspondence acknowledging the debt and the bouncing of cheques. In those circumstances, the evidential burden shifted to the Appellant to demonstrate the existence of a plausible defence warranting a full trial. 17. The applicable test was whether, on the material placed before the court, the defence raised was bona fide or whether it was a sham, evasive, or legally untenable. The court was required to examine whether the replying affidavit disclosed any triable issue that could not be resolved without oral evidence. 18. From the record, I note that the Appellant asserted the existence of a supply agreement prescribing specific standards of quality and quantity. However, no such agreement was exhibited, nor were its terms particularized. The assertion remained a bare allegation unsupported by any documentary evidence. 19. Similarly, the complaint that the diesel supplied was of poor quality and insufficient quantity was pleaded in general terms. It was not clear whether the Appellant’s position was that no payment at all was due, or that only part of the claimed sum was disputed. No attempt was made to distinguish between deliveries allegedly affected and those not in dispute. In the face of a specific liquidated claim, such generalized assertions did not amount to a clear or coherent defence. 20. The Appellant further contended that post-dated cheques were issued on the understanding that delivery would precede presentation, and that the cheques were recalled due to non-delivery. However, no particulars were given as to which cheques related to which alleged non-delivery. This position was also inconsistent with the email correspondence exhibited, in which the Appellant acknowledged the dishonour of cheques, apologized, and even sought indulgence to replace them. No explanation was offered to reconcile that correspondence with the position taken in the replying affidavit. 21. Overall, the Appellant’s response to the application consisted largely of general traverses and denials. These were not accompanied by evidence, consistent explanations, or meaningful rebuttal of the documents relied upon in support of the claim. The Respondent, on the other hand, placed before the court a coherent documentary trail evidencing the debt and its acknowledgment. 22. The Court of Appeal in Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited [1996] eKLR held that a mere general denial in a debt claim supported by clear documentary evidence is insufficient. The court emphasized that the defendant must provide a positive and substantive defence, supported by evidence, to justify leave to defend. 23. Applying the above principles to the present case, the record reveals that the Respondent supplied diesel on various dates, and the Appellant issued four post-dated cheques totaling Kshs.3,067,200, all of which were dishonoured. The Respondent also relied on statements of account and prior dealings (which were not disputed by the Appellant) to demonstrate consistent supply and indebtedness. 24. The Appellant’s defence, however, lacked clarity and internal consistency. On one hand, the Appellant denied indebtedness; on the other, it suggested dissatisfaction with the quality of goods supplied, without explaining how that negated or reduced the admitted transactions. The documentary evidence https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1086/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 5

showed repeated issuance of cheques, their dishonour, and subsequent acknowledgements, none of which were meaningfully addressed in the defence now advanced. 25. In the totality of the material before the court, and having regard to the evidence supporting the application and the nature of the Appellant’s response, no triable issue was disclosed that would have justified the matter proceeding to a full hearing. 26. It therefore followed that the application for summary judgment was properly allowed. Consequently, I find that the appeal before this court lacks merit and is dismissed with costs. 27. Before I conclude, it is critical that I address two other issues raised by the Appellant. The question of jurisdiction, and whether the Ruling complied with Order 21 Rule 4. 28. On jurisdiction, the Appellant, citing the case of Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, argued that the Chief Magistrate’s Court lacked jurisdiction. However, the Appellant did not identify any specific statutory, constitutional, or pecuniary limitation that the Chief Magistrate’s Court allegedly violated. 29. Here, the claim before the Magistrate’s Court was a liquidated commercial claim for Kshs. 16,943,306.69 arising out of the alleged supply of diesel and dishonoured cheques. Section 7 (1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act prescribes that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Chief Magistrates extends well above this amount (currently up to Kshs. 20 million), and nothing in the Appellant’s submissions suggests otherwise. 30. The assertion of lack of jurisdiction is unsupported by the record and appears generic rather than grounded in the content of the pleadings in the lower Court or the statute – Magistrates’ Courts Act. This ground, therefore, fails. 31. Regarding the question of whether the Ruling of the trial court complied with the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellant argued that the trial court did not comply with Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arguing that the ruling lacked detailed reasoning. 32. Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that every judgment of a court shall contain a concise statement of the case. the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. See Gitobu Imanyara 2 Others v Attorney General [2014] eKLR, where it was held that a judgment must articulate the court’s reasoning to enable parties to understand the basis of the decision and to facilitate appellate review. 33. The Court has carefully considered this argument in light of the record placed before the trial court, and the nature of the application that was under consideration. It is noted that the ruling clearly stated that the defence did not disclose triable issues and summarized the grounds upon which summary judgment was granted. The trial court was not required to write a full judgment akin to a final determination. 34. Accordingly, I find no violation of Order 21 Rule 4. 35. The Upshot is that the present appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with costs to the Respondent. SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 29TH JANUARY 2026 ADO MOSES JUDGE In the presence of: - https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1086/eng@2026-01-29 4

page 4 of 5

C/A – Moses Ms. Osoro h/b for Wachira for Appellant Ms. Natasha Alifor the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1086/eng@2026-01-29 5

page 5 of 5