Ruaraka Auto Garage v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Commercial Case E106516 of 2025) [2026] SCC 49 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 49 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MILIMANI SMALL CLAIMS COURT COMMERCIAL CASE E106516 OF 2025 GW KIAMAH, RM JUNE 26, 2026 BETWEEN RUARAKA AUTO GARAGE .................................................................. CLAIMANT AND DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE COMPLANY LIMITED ................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this suit via the statement of claim dated 7/11/2025 seeking judgment against the claimant for Kshs. 136,880.00/= on the basis that on 24/5/2024, the respondent authorized the claimant to repair the insured’s motor vehicle KDM 337X at a cost of Kshs. 136,880/= but the respondent failed to settle the costs despite completion of repairs and release of the vehicle to the insured. 2. The respondent filed a response dated 2/2/2026 and denied all allegations. 3. The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 2/6/2026. The respondent’s were however not on record. 4. I have seen and considered the pleadings, testimonies, evidence and submissions before court. The main issue for determination is whether the outstanding sum of Kshs. 136,880/= was proven. 5. The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities. See the Court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. 6. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya places the burden of proof of a fact on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of such fact. 7. I have considered the court record and note that the respondent indeed authorized repairs on the subject vehicle vide letter dated 30/4/2024. Vide the same letter, the respondent called for the relevant invoice for payment within 30 days of sharing the required documents including satisfactory note and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/49/eng@2026-06-26 1
page 1 of 2
release letter. The claimant produced the satisfaction note and there was no indication of any payment. The claimant also produced the demand sent to the respondent for payment. 8. The respondent merely denied the entire claim without filing any witness statements to explain why payment was not done despite repair and release of the vehicle. 9. From the foregoing, I do find that the claimant has proven the claim as against the respondent to the required standard. To that end, I hereby order as follows: - 10. 1. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 136,880.00/= 2. The claimant is awarded costs Kshs. 15,000/= The respondent is awarded 30 days stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/49/eng@2026-06-26 2
page 2 of 2