Anangwe v Nyongesa (Commercial Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 669 (KLR)

4. The Defendant entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 05th May 2025, admitting that the Plaintifi had fully repaid the loan he had advanced to him, which had been secured by the suit motor vehicle. 5. The Defendant added that upon the Plaintifi fully settling the loan of Kshs. 130,000/=, the Plaintifi sold to him the suit motor vehicle at Kshs. 400,000/= on 26th June 2024 in the presence of one Dennis Situma Mukwa, with the consequence that the Plaintifi handed over the suit motor vehicle and the said motor vehicle’s logbook to him. 6. He added that the Plaintifi had refused to sign the relevant transfer forms for the transfer of the suit motor vehicle to him, thereby necessitating the filing of the counterclaim herein. 7. The Defendant also pleaded in his Defence and Counterclaim that the Plaintifi approached him on 16th November 2024 for a refund of the Kshs. 400,000/= he had paid him for the sale of the suit motor vehicle. This prompted him to send Kshs. 2,000,000/= to the Plaintifi to enable the Plaintifi to collect his identity card in some hospital in Eldoret to facilitate the sale of his land. 8. Given the above, the Defendant urged this court to dismiss the Plaintifi’s case with costs and enter judgment against the Plaintifi on the Counterclaim for: a. An order compelling the Plaintifi to execute NTSA forms for the transfer of ownership of the said motor vehicle registration number KAX 046 K to the Defendant b. In the alternative an order that the Executive Oficer to execute NTSA transfer forms for the transfer of ownership of the said motor vehicle registration number KAX 046 K to the Defendant c. Refund of Kshs. 2,000/= plus interest d. Cost of this suit 9. In response, the Plaintifi filed a Reply to the Defence and Counterclaim denying selling the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant and reiterating the averments in his amended Plaint. He also averred that the Kshs. 2,000/= the Defendant sent to him was the Defendant’s contribution towards his nephew's funeral. 10. The Plaintifi urged this court to dismiss the Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim with costs. 11. The divergent positions taken by the parties herein regarding this matter prompted this court to set down this matter for hearing for the parties herein to prove the averments in their respective pleadings on a balance of probabilities. Evidence Plaintifi ’s Case 12. PW1 Joseph Anangwe adopted his witness statement dated 24th March 2025 and his further statement dated 09th April 2025 as his evidence in chief. He also produced all the documents in his list of documents herein as his exhibits. 13. His testimony was largely a rendition of the contents of his pleadings, which this court need not reproduce here. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 8

14. In cross-examination, he denied there being any agreement between him and the Defendant over the sale of the suit motor vehicle. He reiterated that the Kshs. 2,000/= the Defendant sent him on 16th November 2024 was meant for his nephew’s funeral contributions. 15. He also stated that he reported the Defendant’s refusal to release the suit motor vehicle to him to the police, who had a sit-down with them, but they failed to resolve the dispute herein. 16. He concluded his testimony by stating in re-examination that he handed over the suit motor vehicle and its logbook to the Defendant on execution of the loan agreement. 17. PW2 Maurice Askari Kidwadi adopted his witness statement dated 11th August 2025 as his evidence in chief. He recalled that on 26th November 2023, the Plaintifi approached him seeking a loan of Kshs. 70,000/= to settle his son’s university fees. 18. He introduced the Plaintifi to the Defendant for the Defendant to advance a loan to the Plaintifi. This led to the execution of a loan agreement between the Plaintifi and the Defendant on 26th November 2023 where the Defendant advanced a loan of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Plaintifi to be repaid with interest of Kshs. 30,000/=. 19. He added that the Plaintifi handed over the suit motor vehicle and its original logbook to the Defendant as security for the loan. He further stated that the Plaintifi repaid the Defendant the loan plus interest, but the Defendant declined to release the suit motor vehicle to the Plaintifi, which forced the Plaintifi to request him to speak to the Defendant for the release of the suit motor vehicle to the Plaintifi. 20. The Defendant refused to release the suit motor vehicle to the Plaintifi when he advised the Plaintifi to report the matter to the police. 21. He conceded in cross-examination that there was no mention of the suit motor vehicle’s logbook in the friendly loan agreement on record. He added that the Kshs. 100,000/= loan was sent to the Plaintifi via M-Pesa. 22. He could not tell if the Plaintifi borrowed more money from the Defendant or sold the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant. Defendant’s Case 23. DW1 Dennis Mukwa Situma adopted his witness statement herein as his evidence in chief. His testimony was that he witnessed the Plaintifi selling the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant at Kshs. 400,000/=. 24. He conceded in cross-examination that the Plaintifi fully repaid the loan advanced to him by the Defendant, and that the Defendant was still in possession of the suit motor vehicle. 25. He also admitted that there was no written agreement regarding the Plaintifi’s alleged sale of the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant. 26. DW2 Victor Wafula Nyongesa adopted his witness statement dated 25th March 2026 as his evidence in chief, and produced all his documents on record as exhibits. 27. His testimony was a regurgitation of the averments in his pleadings. It will not serve any purpose to reproduce the same here. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 8

28. He admitted in cross-examination that the Plaintifi repaid the loan of Kshs. 130,000/= he had advanced to him, and that the suit motor vehicle had been used by the Plaintifi as security for the said loan. He also admitted being in possession of the suit motor vehicle. 29. Further, he conceded that there was no written agreement to show that the Plaintifi sold the suit motor vehicle to him. Written Submissions 30. Upon the close of the Plaintifi’s case and the Defendant’s case, the parties herein took directions on filing and service of written submissions. However, neither party filed written submissions. Analysis & Determination 31. This court has duly considered the parties’ pleadings and the evidence on record. 32. It is common ground that the Plaintifi fully settled the loan of Kshs. 100,000/= the Defendant advanced to him to him 26th November 2023 plus the interest of Kshs. 30,000/=. There is also no contest that the Defendant is still in possession of the suit motor vehicle, which the Plaintifi used as security for the said loan of Kshs. 100,000/= despite the Plaintifi having fully settled the loan herein. 33. The foregoing inclines this court to find that the issues for determination are whether the Plaintifi sold the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant, and if so or not so, what are the remedies available to the parties herein. Whether the Plaintifi sold the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant 34. The Defendant’s case is that the Plaintifi sold to him the suit motor vehicle on 26h June 2024 at a consideration of Kshs. 400,000/= when the Plaintifi also handed over the suit motor vehicle as well as its original motor vehicle to him. The Plaintifi disputed the Defendant’s position on the circumstances under which the Defendant got in possession of the suit motor vehicle and its original logbook. 35. The Defendant conceded that there was no written agreement between the parties herein regarding the sale of the suit motor vehicle. He sought to rely on his testimony, DW2’s testimony, and his KCB statement on record to prove that he bought the suit motor vehicle from the Plaintifi on 26th June 2024 at a consideration of Kshs. 400,000/=. 36. Interestingly, the Defendant was at pains to explain before this court why the parties herein failed to reduce the sale agreement for the suit motor vehicle into writing, despite having earlier executed a written loan agreement for a loan of Kshs. 100,000/=. 37. It is inconceivable that parties would reduce a loan agreement of Kshs. 100,000/= in writing but fail to reduce a motor vehicle sale agreement involving a consideration of Kshs. 400,000/= into writing. 38. This court was also left wondering how the Defendant sent a loan of Kshs. 100,000/= to the Plaintifi through M-Pesa, but chose not to document an exchange of Kshs. 400,000/= between the parties herein. 39. The Defendant also appeared to suggest that the fact that the handing over of the suit motor vehicle’s logbook to him was not captured in the friendly loan agreement on record was proof that the Plaintifi handed over the said logbook to him after selling the suit motor vehicle to him. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 4

page 4 of 8

40. PW2 was forthright that at the time of executing the friendly loan agreement between the parties herein, the Plaintifi handed over the suit motor vehicle’s original logbook and the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant. 41. This court had the benefit of observing PW2 during his testimony. His testimony regarding the issues in dispute remained unshaken even after cross-examination. He was a truthful witness. This court finds no reason to disbelieve PW2’s testimony on the circumstances under which the Defendant got into possession of the suit motor vehicle’s original logbook. 42. In any event, in the ordinary course of events and in loan trade practice in this jurisdiction, the lender retains the motor vehicle’s original logbook where a motor vehicle is used as security for a loan. 43. Given the reasons above, this court finds that the Defendant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he got into possession of the suit motor vehicle’s original logbook after the Plaintifi had sold the suit motor vehicle to him. 44. It is also noteworthy that despite the Defendant admitting before this court that the Plaintifi handed over the suit motor vehicle to him as collateral for the loan of Kshs. 100,000/= he advanced to the Plaintifi, the Defendant instructed his counsel to respond to the Plaintifi’s counsel’s demand letter dated 17th February 2023 through a demand letter dated 21st February 2023 denying the fact that the Plaintifi used the suit motor vehicle as security for the loan of Kshs. 100,000/=. 45. The mere fact that the Defendant lied in his demand letter dated 21st February 2025, which he confidently produced before this court as evidence under oath, calls into play the Latin maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ("false in one thing, false in everything"). This maxim presupposes that where a witness lies in one part of their testimony, the rest of their evidence is automatically discarded. 46. Courts in this jurisdiction do not take lying under oath lightly. Where a party lies under oath, courts have readily applied the Latin maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ("false in one thing, false in everything") in disregarding evidence led by a witness who lies under oath. 47. For instance, Kaniaru, J in Heleriko Wabwire Orubia v John Opondo Barasa [2018] KEELC 1992 (KLR) rendered himself thus: “ 28. 48. But the Plaintifi’s dishonesty did not stop there. In his evidence in court, he said that he was not related to the Defendant. When the Defendant’s turn to testify came, he availed evidence both from himself and others that he is in fact related to the Defendant. It is not clear why the Plaintifi decided to follow the path of lies. That path has never done any good to anyone. There is a Maxim in law: FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS, which translates as - false in one thing, false in everything. It is not clear in this matter what truth, if any, the Plaintifi told the court.” Further, Nzili, J, in Josephat Mburugu v Silas Mwiti Mugwika [2022] KEELC 1244 (KLR), stated as follows: “ As the saying goes, FANSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS false in one thing false in everything, the appellant had built his case on quicksand and cannot therefore blame the court for finding that he had failed to prove any of his legal rights to land that had been infringed by the respondent.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 5

page 5 of 8

49. Lastly, in Antony Ayieko Oluoch & another v Francis Oluoch Juma [2017] KEELC 934 (KLR), the court stated thus regarding lies by a party before a court: “ It is always good to be honest and truthful in a court of law. The 1st Defendant lied at paragraph 5 of the supporting afidavit to the application when he deponed as follows: “5:That the application for stay vide application dated 18/8/2015 was declined”. Elsewhere in this ruling, I have mentioned a ruling delivered by the lower court on 23/11/2015. That ruling was on the application dated 18/8/2015, the same application referred to by the 1st Applicant. It is very clear that the application was allowed, not declined. There already exists an order of stay of execution. That is the same execution that the 1st Applicant intends to seek here if the order of transfer is granted. The truth is that the 1st Applicant lied on oath. In law, there is a maxim: FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS (False in one, false in everything). There is no telling what other lies the 1st Applicant has told in his afidavit. This court feels dis-inclined to look on the 1st Applicant favourably. The court is not happy that the 1st Applicant appears to have no respect for truth.”(Emphasis added) 50. In Joachim Gitonga v Elijah Mugwanja Chege & another [2015] KEHC 7580 (KLR), the court stated that true evidence is consistent, and a witness who provides confiicting versions to suit the forum cannot be deemed truthful. 51. The common thread running through the authorities above is that a court is at liberty to draw an adverse inference against a party who lies under oath. 52. Considering the doubts raised by this court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of this judgment, this court’s finding on PW2’s credibility and trustworthiness, and guided by the authorities above on the efiect of a party’s lies on oath on such a party’s case, this court is at a loss on what aspect of the Defendant’s testimony or evidence to believe or disbelieve. 53. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that the Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim was a concoction of poorly crafted lies meant to hoodwink this court into unlawfully dispossessing the Plaintifi of the suit motor vehicle. 54. The Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim can only be summed up by Odunga, J’s (as he then was), lamentations in Kioko Peter v Kisakwa Ndolo Kingóku [2019] KEHC 11387 (KLR), where he stated: Parties and Counsel ought to give the court’s some credit that the courts are not manned by morons who can be easily duped into believing all manner of incredible stories with little or no iota of truth. It is these kinds of allegations that Madan, J (as he then was) had in mind when in N vs. N [1991] KLR 685 he expressed himself in the following terms: “I wish people would not tell me absurd and unbelievable lies. I feel disappointed if a lie told in court is not reasonable imitation of the truth and is not reasonably intelligently contrived. I wish people who tell lies before me would respect my grey hair even if they consider that my intelligence is not of high order. I wish the witness had not told me the most stupid of his lies, which both disappointed and made me feel intellectually insulted.” 55. It is against this backdrop that this court finds and holds that the Plaintifi did not sell the suit motor vehicle to the Defendant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 6

page 6 of 8

56. Given the foregoing, the Defendant’s counterclaim is bereft of merit; thus, the same must fall like a house of cards. What remedies are available to the Plaintifi 57. The finding above that the Defendant’s Counterclaim is bereft of merit inevitably means that the Plaintifi’s prayer for the Defendant’s release of the suit motor vehicle to him is merited since there is no lawful justification whatsoever why the Defendant should continue holding on to a security which had already served its purpose a long time ago. 58. The Plaintifi also prayed for an award of damages for the Defendant’s illegal and unlawful detention of the suit motor vehicle 59. There is no doubt that the moment the Plaintifi cleared the loan he owed the Defendant, the Defendant’s continued use of the suit motor vehicle constituted illegal and unlawful detention of the suit motor vehicle. These unlawful actions by the Defendant deprived the Plaintifi of the use of the suit motor vehicle, thereby causing the Plaintifi to sufier loss and damage. 60. Equity does not sufier a wrong without a remedy. It thus follows that the Plaintifi is entitled to general damages for the period the Defendant deprived him the use of his motor vehicle. 61. This begs the question of the quantum of general damages due to the Plaintifi for the illegal and unlawful detention of the suit motor vehicle. Guidance on how to assess general damages for illegal detention of a motor vehicle was given in Martha Wangari Njoka v Nairobi City Commission [1992] KEHC 149 (KLR), where the court stated as follows: “ I have considered this matter carefully. Clearly, the plaintifi was denied the use of her car. She was inconvenienced, was exposed to hardship and may have been embarrassed. Although that was the case, a careful reading of the case of The Medina [1900] AC 113 and a later decision of Berrill –v- Road Haulage Executive [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Reports 490 which applied The Medina case supra damages are not necessarily arrived at by ascertaining what it would have cost to hire alternative transport. The trial judge always retains the power to assess the circumstances and fix what he considers to be reasonable damages. In other words, the mere fact that a plaintifi says he or she checked what it would cost to hire alternative transport then he or she should be paid that much. Far from it. The Court must assess the degree of the inconvenience, hardship, or embarrassment sufiered and do its best to fix a monetary compensation. In Berrill –v- Road Haulage Executive supra the Court said:“ The damage in the form of inconvenience and general damage was trivial and I assess it at the sum of 40s.” I have considered the inconvenience, hardship and embarrassment the plaintifi sufiered. It cannot be categorized as extreme. Nor can it be regarded as trivial. Kshs 2,000/= per day suggested by learned counsel for the plaintifi is clearly on the high side. I would have been inclined to accept it had the plaintifi produced other figures from other car hire companies to show that was the charge of most companies. The plaintifi was obliged to adduce evidence to show the Court that it was reasonable and competitive. Taking all the circumstance into account, I consider Kshs 40,000/= as reasonable compensation by way of general damages.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 7

page 7 of 8

62. The authority above shows that assessment of general damages in such cases is usually done through computation of the loss if documents to prove the loss are available or through the exercise of the court’s discretion based on the circumstances of a particular case. 63. In the instant case, the Plaintifi did not provide any documentation to prove the loss incurred during the time the Defendant deprived him of the suit motor vehicle. In the circumstances, this is a proper case for this court to exercise its discretion judiciously in assessing the general damages due to the Plaintifi. 64. Considering the circumstances of this case, and the duration the Defendant has remained in possession of the suit property to the Plaintifi’s detriment, this court is of the considered view that Kshs. 100,000/ = is reasonable compensation to the Plaintifi in general damages for the Defendant’s illegal and unlawful detention of the suit motor vehicle. Determination 65. 66. For the reasons above, the following orders commend to this court:a. The Defendant is ordered to release to the Plaintifi motor vehicle registration number KAX 046 K, engine number BJ4xxxxx34, and chassis No. LCRxxxxxxxx66 in serviceable condition, as well as the said motor vehicle’s original logbook, within three days of today b. The Plaintifi is awarded general damages of Kshs. 100,000/= for illegal and unlawful retention and use of motor vehicle registration number KAX 046 K c. The general damages awarded will earn interest at court rate from the date of this judgment till payment in full d. The Defendant’s Counterclaim is dismissed e. The Plaintifi will have the costs of this suit as well as the costs of the Counterclaim Judgment accordingly. READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 T.O. OMONO RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Mr. Onkangi h/b for Wayongo for the Defendant C/A: Mr. Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/669/eng@2026-04-30 8

page 8 of 8