REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL NO.E002 OF 2025 PAUL WANYAMA………………………………….…………… APPELLANT VERSUS COUNTY ASSETS LIMITED……………………….. …….RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arose from a judgment of Hon Adjudicator I. Kabuteh, Senior Resident Magistrate delivered vide Kitale SCCOMM No.E090 of 2025 on 15-9-2025. 2. In that case the appellant was sued for Kshs.35,000/- plus interest of Kshs.10,500/- being an amount owed to the respondent on account of a loan facility extended to the appellant and which amount had become due because of default in repayment. 3. The Hon Adjudicator found in favour of the respondent and entered judgment for Kshs.46,258/- with no order as to costs. The respondent was also ordered to return a 12kg gas cooker (must have been gas cylinder) and a blow-dry machine to the appellant forthwith. JUDGMENT-KTL HC SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL NO.E002/2025 PAGE 1 OF3
page 1 of 4
4. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed this appeal raising the following grounds namely; (i) That the learned Adjudicator erred in law and in fact in awarding the claimant/respondent the sum of Kshs.46,258.97 without properly considering the appellant’s evidence, including Mpesa statements showing that he had repaid Kshs.10,000/- towards the loan. (ii) That the learned Adjudicator erred in law and in fact in failing to deduct the said sum of Kshs.10,000/- already paid from the alleged principal loan of Kshs.45,000/thereby arriving at an erroneous and inflated balance. (iii) That the learned Adjudicator erred in law in awarding interest and/or charges which were neither pleaded or proved, contrary to section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012 thereby sanctioning unlawful and unenforceable interest. (iv) That the learned Adjudicator erred in law in failing to appreciate that the respondent, having not demonstrated its incorporation, authority to sue, or compliance with the Central Bank of Kenya (Digital Credit Providers) Regulations 2022, lacked capacity to maintain the claim. (v) That the learned Adjudicator erred in law and in fact in failing to properly evaluate the evidence before the court, thereby arriving in findings not supported by law or evidence. 5. The appellant’s gist of his appeal is that the Adjudicator failed to consider repayment of Kshs.10,000/- made via Mpesa. He further alleges that the goods seized from him JUDGMENT-KTL HC SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL NO.E002/2025 PAGE 2 OF3
page 2 of 4
were ordered to be returned but the respondent has not returned them. 6. This court has re-evaluated the evidence tendered during trial and perused the judgment of Hon Adjudicator. It is quite clear that the Hon Adjudicator found as a matter of fact that the appellant had repaid Kshs.10,000/- vide Mpesa. Therefore from the total amount of Kshs.46,258/- the amount of Kshs.10,000/- acknowledged to have been repaid should have been subtracted from the total amount due. This appeal therefore partly succeeds to the extent that the amount due to the respondent is Kshs.36,258/- and not Kshs.46,258/-. The judgment of the Adjudicator is therefore set aside. The respondent shall pay Kshs.36,258/- to the respondent. The amount will however be paid only upon compliance by the respondent to return the 12kg gas cylinder and a blow-dry machine to appellant. I make no order as to costs in this appeal. DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at KITALE this ……22nd ………………JULY……….……………., 2026. .… day of HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMO KITALE HIGH COURT Judgment delivered in open court In the presence of Hawkins for the Respondent Sifuna for the Appellant JUDGMENT-KTL HC SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL NO.E002/2025 PAGE 3 OF3
page 3 of 4
Duke/Chemosop- court assistants JUDGMENT-KTL HC SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL NO.E002/2025 PAGE 4 OF3
page 4 of 4