Benson Onyango Ojuju v Sindra Motors Limited

Kshs.20,000 which the appellant gave the respondent but the respondent refused to issue a receipt The appellant, further, averred that the respondent promised to call the plaintiff to pick the logbook but never did so. 3. The appellant also stated that he paid the last instalment for purchase price of subject motor vehicle herein in February, 2009 but the production of receipts as defendant a ploy has to insisted on frustrate and maliciously fleece him. To date, the appellant, he has never been given the logbook or transfer documents of the subject motor vehicle by the respondent despite reminders. He,therefore, prayed for judgement against the defendant for: a) Release to the plaintiff of motor vehicle registration number KBA876K and duly executed transfer of the same in favour of the plaintiff. b) A declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the motor vehicle registration number KBA 876K as the defendant has no other claim over the same. 4. In response, the respondent filed a statement of defence and counter-claim dated 11th May 2016. In its defence the respondent admitted that it entered an agreement on 30 th November 2007 not the year 2008 with the plaintiff. The respondent also admitted that the purchase price of the subject motor vehicle herein was Kshs.1,250,000/= and further that the plaintiff paid Kshs.500,000 leaving a balance of Kshs.750,000 which was to be paid in instalments up to 15th October, 2008 and not February, 2009 as alleged by the appellant. The defendant, however, denied that the plaintiff paid the full purchase CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 2|Page

page 2 of 7

price of the vehicle and stated that there is a balance of Ksh. 200,000 which the plaintiff has refused to pay despite several reminders hence refusal to hand over to him the log book. The respondent also denied it was paid Ksh. 20,000 as alleged by the appellant. In its counter claim, the claimant prayed for payment of the unpaid balance of Kshs. 200,000 plus interest and costs of the suit. 5. In its judgement the trial court found the plaintiff was unable to prove by way of documents that he paid the respondent the entire purchase price of Kshs.1,250,000. Indeed, the amounts in the documents produced, the trial court found, when aggregated disclosed a shortfall of Kshs. 200,000 that was not proved to be paid. The court, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with costs. 6. Being dissatisfied with the trial court judgement the appellant preferred this appeal. The appeal is based on the following grounds: a) That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that some of the evidence produced by the appellant confirmed that the appellant had not paid the respondent the outstanding balance of Kshs.200,000 in respect to the purchase price of motor vehicle registration number KBA 876K. b) That the trial court erred in law and fact in its holding to the effect that only production of documentary evidence would have proved the payment of Kshs. 200,000 c) That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in its failure to consider the strong circumstantial evidence that was given by the appellant that to the effect that CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 3|Page

page 3 of 7

the entire purchase price for the subject motor vehicle herein had been paid. d) That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact as his decision is against the weight of the law and evidence adduced in the trial of this matter. e) That the trial court erred in law and fact in that it failed to make determination of the claim for general damages. 7. In his evidence the appellant adopted his witness statements filed on 13th April 2016 and further statement dated on 11th April ,2019. In both statements the appellant reiterated the contents of his plaint. The plaintiff also produced receipts to prove payment of the purchase price of the subject Kshs.1,050,000. motor On vehicle herein cross-examination, totalling he to however insisted he paid the full purchase price of Kshs. 1,250,000. 8. PW2, Kevin Omondi Ojuju, the plaintiff’s brother, adopted further witness statement filed on 30/4/2019 as his evidence- in- chief. In the statement, PW2 stated that sometimes in 2007, the appellant purchased a Nissan Matatu from the respondent for commercial purposes.PW2, further, stated that vehicle plied TudorDocks route and that his brother entrusted him with the running of the matatu business. 9. In 2009, PW2 stated, they relocated to Kisumu and drove the subject motor vehicle to Kisumu for business. The matatu business did, however, did not do well in Kisumu, PW2 and the appellant decided to sell the vehicle. 10. PW2, further, stated he contacted a friend in Mombasa called Gilbert who acting on behalf of Ms.Rose Kioko(PW3), CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 4|Page

page 4 of 7

a prospective buyer agreed to purchase the subject motor vehicle on condition that the logbook is availed. 11. Accompanied by Gilbert and Ms. Rose Kioko, PW2 stated, they went to Sidra Motors to inquire about the logbook and they met one Mr. Muhamed Rafik Rahimatullah who demanded Kshs. 20,000 to enable him to facilitate transfer of the logbook to the appellants’s name and he paid the amount of money demanded but was not issued a receipt. PW2, further, stated that he agreed with Gilbert that he collects the logbook from the respondent once the transfer is effected and Mr.Rahimtullah assured that the transfer would be done within 3 days. 12. Several days later, PW2 stated, the respondent demanded receipts for full payment of the subject vehicle before transfer can be effected .PW2, further, stated that he took all the payment receipts to the respondent but he noticed 2 where missing.PW2, further, stated he explained to Rahimtullah that 2 receipts may have been misplaced while they relocated to Kisumu from Mombasa but he refused to accept the explanation and to confirm payment. 13. PW3, Rose Kioko, stated that sometimes in 2015 she bought Nissan Matatu registration number KBA 876K sold to her by PW2 through a broker named Gilbert. PW3, stated he gave Sidra Motors Limited Ksh. 20,000 in cash though Kevin(PW2) and they were advised transfer would be done within 3 days. After 3 days officials of Sindra Motors, PW3 stated, did not give them the logbook of the subject vehicle or motor vehicle inspection booklet and refused to sign the transfer forms stating that the appellant had not paid the full purchase price and CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 5|Page

page 5 of 7

demanded for payment receipts issued to the appellant. The witnesses, however, revealed that out of Ksh.20,000 she paid, Kshs.10,000 was refunded to her. 14. On behalf of the respondent, Kalthum Ahmed Athman testified. The witness was the respondent’s Marketing Manager.She reiterated the contents of the defendant’s witness statement and counter claim. 15. The issue for determination by the court matter is whether the appellant paid the respondent the outstanding balance of Ksh.200,000 claimed by the respondent to complete the purchase of the price of the subject motor vehicle herein. The appellant and his brother, PW2 acknowledged they had no receipts to prove payment of the aforesaid sums of money. PW 2 stated 2 receipts to prove payment may have been misplaced as they relocated from Mombasa to Kisumu. The respondent’s witness2, on the other hand, testified that the plaintiff has not paid the money. 16. The is no proof that the appellant paid the respondent the sum of Ksh.200,000 being outstanding payment of the purchase price for the subject motor vehicle herein. The claim by PW 2 that 2 receipts to prove payment of said money may have misplaced during the relocation of the appellant from Mombasa to Kisumu is a mere presumption with not evidential value. It also hard to believe that only the receipts for the outstanding payments got misplaced whereas all the other receipts payments made by the appellant totaling Kshs.1,050,000 were available. 17. The appellant’s counsel submission that the fact respondent has not exercised its right to reposes the subject motor vehicle herein under clause 9 of the parties’ CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 6|Page

page 6 of 7

agreement is circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff has paid the full purchase price of the vehicle given has no legal basis. 18. This court concurs with Judgement with the trial the appellant failed to prove his case against the respondent in this matter and finds no reason to fault the Judgement. 19. The upshot of the findings above is that this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. As the appeal was not defended the court makes no order as to costs. Dated, signed and virtually delivered this 28th day of July 2026. Hon. P. K. Rotich JUDGE In the presence of: Randa for the Appellant Ms. Ambatsi for Gakuo for the Respondent CIVIL APPEAL NO. E065 OF 2024 JUDGEMENT (Benson Onyango Ojuju -vs- Sindra Motors Limited) 7|Page

page 7 of 7