Connect 247 Energy Ltd v Karanja (Commercial Case E253 of 2024) [2025] SCC 31 (KLR)

a. Whether there was an agreement between the parties for supply of petroleum products by the claimant to the respondent on credit; b. Whether petroleum products were supplied to the respondent by the claimant; c. Whether the respondent is indebted to the claimant; and if so, d. What remedies the claimant should have. 6. In determining these issues, the court is guided by the hackneyed principle that he who asserts the existence of certain facts must prove that those facts exist. 7. Section 32 (1) to (2) of the Small Claims Court Act is also instructive on the threshold of evidence required before this court. It states; 32. Exclusion of strict Rules of evidence (1) The Court shall not be bound wholly by the Rules of evidence. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Court may admit as evidence in any proceedings before it, any oral or written testimony, record or other material that the Court considers credible or trustworthy even though the testimony, record or other material is not admissible as evidence in any other Court under the law of evidence. (3) Evidence tendered to the Court by or on behalf of a party to any proceedings may not be given on oath but that Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, require that such evidence or any part thereof be given on oath whether orally or in writing. (4) The Court may, on its own initiative, seek and receive such other evidence and make such other investigations and inquiries as it may require. (5) All evidence and information received and ascertained by the Court under subsection (3) shall be disclosed to every party. (6) .. (7) .. 8. Simply put, the Small Claims Court is in not bound by strict rules of evidence and may admit into evidence, what it deems credible or honest. 9. The claimant herein asserts that it supplied petroleum products to the respondent on credit between December 2022 and December 2023. 10. This claim is vehemently denied by the respondent who asserts that he had no credit agreement with the claimant. 11. The respondent’s learned counsel rightly submitted that there was no written agreement between the parties herein for supply of fuel on credit. The evidence also supports the respondent’s submissions that he did not sign any invoices or delivery notes from the claimant. 12. The claimant case is that arrangement between the parties was verbal. CW1 told the court that the respondent would send his drivers to the claimant’s station to fuel vehicles and the drivers would sign on their invoices confirming that they had fueled on credit. Sometimes, the respondent’s manger would be present as the drivers fueled the vehicles. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/31/eng@2025-03-14 2

page 2 of 5

13. CW2 added that the parties were working on a reducing balance meaning that the respondent would continue to fuel even while in debt. The credit limit was however cupped at Kshs. 500,000/=. 14. In cross examination, the respondent conceded that his vehicles would be fueled by the claimant but clarified that he used to make payments in advance and maintained that he would not purchase fuel on credit. He testified that the payments were calculated based on the distances his drivers needed to cover. 15. When questioned about a sum of Kshs. 150,000/= he had sent to the claimant on 4th March 2023, the respondent stated that the amount was intended to cover fuel for a week. Upon further inquiry, he told the court that he was able to track the consumption of fuel by his drivers as they were issued with receipts which they would remit to him. 16. The respondent did not produce those receipts to the court but it was clear from his evidence that his vehicles had been fueled by the claimant on his instructions. 17. On the other hand, the claimant produced copies of invoices issued to the respondent, a copy of a Client Statement for the period between 1st January 2020 and 21st January 2025 and an Mpesa statement for the period between 1st August 2023 and 31st August 2023 to prove its claim. 18. These documents were challenged by the respondent on various grounds. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent observed that while the claimant had filed 48 copies of invoices in court, the physical copies supplied to the court were 100. It went without saying that the amounts indicated in those sets of invoices were difierent; with the physical copies amounting to close to a million shillings. 20. Counsel also observed that while CW1 had testified that tracks bearing registration numbers KCC 474M and KCQ 945S belonged to the respondent, the invoices supplied by the claimant bore registration numbers KCA 206W, KCQ 745S, KUS 951, KCC 744M, KUS 951 and KCA. 21. On the Client Statement, it was submitted that the same referred to Wakabeca yet no evidence had been led to show that Wakabeca referred to the respondent. It was also noted that the Client Statement did not bear the signature or approval of the claimant nor was the accountant who had prepared the Client Statement been called as a witness in the matter. 22. This court confirms that the claimant filed 50 invoices but the physical copies availed were more than twice that number. 23. A closer inspection of the filed copies of invoices and comparing them with the Client Statement, this court notes that other than invoice numbers 16544 and 16995, all other invoices are captured in the claimant’s Client Statement alongside the monies owed for those invoices. 24. According to the claimant’s Client Statement respondent received goods worth Kshs. 5,500,869/= for the period between 30th November 2022 to 16th January 2024 and paid a sum of Kshs. 5,000,915/=, leaving a balance of Kshs. 499,954/= unpaid. 25. Although the respondent disputed the Client Statement on the basis that the same did not bear a signature or approval by the claimant, CW1 who is the company’s director endorsed the statement and confirmed that it emanated from the company. He also confirmed that the accountant, one Esther, who had processed the statement, worked at the company. He testified that the managers of the stations run by the claimant would send documents to head ofice for collection of data, therefore the said accountant would not be conversant with transactions at the station. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/31/eng@2025-03-14 3

page 3 of 5

26. As pointed out earlier, strict rules of evidence do not bind the Small Claim Court. Hence, this court will not insist on the production of the statement by the accountant, who merely retrieved the statement from the claimant’s computer system. Moreover, since the statement has been endorsed by the company’s director and is supported by copies of invoices that correspond with its entries, this court finds the statement authentic. 27. Further, while the claimant did not produce evidence to show that the word Wakabeca – Kerugoya, to whom the statement is addressed, referred to the respondent, the respondent’s telephone number is prominently displayed on the statement. 28. The respondent had admitted that he sent monies to the claimant through his phone number as shown in the claimant’s M-pesa statements. He admitted that the phone number, ending with the numbers “4477” belongs to him. He also admitted that he had sent money through his Fortune Sacco account to the claimant. 29. An inspection of the claimant’s M-pesa statements shows that, the amounts paid by the respondent on 4th March 2023 through M-pesa and through his Fortune Sacco accounts tally with those refiected in the Client Statement. This also applies to the payments made by the respondent on 14th February 2023 and 12th January 2023. 30. It was argued that the claimant had not proved that each of the vehicles captured in the invoices belonged to the respondent, it is however clear beyond peradventure, that the Client Statement refiects transactions between him and the claimant. While the claimant produced invoices, an Mpesa statement and a Client Statement to prove its claim, the respondent did not adduce any credible evidence to show that he did not purchase or receive goods on credit. 31. As submitted by the claimant’s learned counsel, the respondent was unable to explain how his purported advance payments were accounted for. While he claimed that his drivers would provide him with receipts after fueling, he did not present any of these receipts as evidence in order to prove that he was not fueling vehicles on credit. 32. The claimant was required to prove its case on a balance of probabilities which has been defined in the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372, thus: “ That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘We think it more probable than not’, the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. Thus, proof on a balance or preponderance of probabilities means a win, however narrow. A draw is not enough. So, in any case in which the tribunal cannot decide one way or the other which evidence to accept, where both parties’ explanations are equally (un)convincing, the party bearing the burden of proof will lose, because the requisite standard will not have been attained.” 33. For the reasons given above, this court finds that the claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that there was an agreement for the supply of petroleum products between the parties. As shown in the Client Statement, the respondent was indebted to the claimant and therefore received goods on credit. Further, this court has found that the Client Statement produced by the claimant is genuine and is supported by invoices and transactions made by the respondent as refiected in its M-pesa statement. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/31/eng@2025-03-14 4

page 4 of 5

The court therefore concludes that the respondent owes the claimant a sum of Kshs. 499,954/= as refiected in the Client Statement. 34. The upshot of the foregoing is that judgment is entered against the respondent for a sum of Kshs. 499,954/=. 35. Interest shall accrue on the above sum at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full. 36. The costs of the suit which are assessed at Kshs. 60,900/= shall be borne by the respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERUGOYA THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. GRACE WAITHĨRA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR Judgment sent via CTS platform in accordance with Rule 23 (4) (b) of the Small Claims Court Rules. The execution of this judgment is stayed for 30 days. Right of appeal be exercised within 30 days. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/31/eng@2025-03-14 5

page 5 of 5