Calleja v Kariuki (Commercial Case E1471 of 2025) [2026] SCC 92 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 92 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT MOMBASA COMMERCIAL CASE E1471 OF 2025 TN MWANGEKA, RM APRIL 30, 2026 BETWEEN HUGO BERNARDO BALDASANO CALLEJA ..................................... CLAIMANT AND VICTOR GATONYE KARIUKI ......................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. This judgment relates to a Statement of Claim dated 15th December 2025 seeking repayment/refund of money, as a result of a Rent Deposit in the sum of Kshs. 230,000/-which was under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement to be repaid on or before 30th June, 2025. 2. The Respondent denied the claim and that as per the Lease, the Claimant was responsible for restoring the property in good and tenantable condition and the appliances namely, a Bosch Microwave Bosch Cooke, if utilized were to be replaced prior to termination. Additionally, he filed a counter claim for Kshs 539,980/- for repairs on the said suit Premises by way of: (i)Painting of the walls; (ii)Polishing and waxing to restore the wood fioor; (iii)Matt waxing and polishing of Doors, Wardrobes and Kitchen Cabinets; (iv)Painting on balcony and aluminium doors; (v)Wood Restoration on the Balcony at Kshs 255,000/-. 2. Replacement of the Bosch Oven at Ksh. 231,985/-. 3. Replacement of the Bosch Microwave at Ksh 52,995.00 3. I must highlight at this point that Rule 14 of the Small Claims Court Rules limits this courts jurisdiction with regards to the value of award a Respondent can obtain in relation to a counterclaim to two hundred thousand Kenya Shillings only were the same to be successful. 4. The court has considered the pleadings filed together with the documents in support of the respective cases as well as the rival submissions filed and renders itself as hereunder; 5. It is not in dispute that the Claimant paid the rent deposit of Kshs. 230,000/- and that on 30th April 2025 he tendered a notice to vacate by end of May 2025 and thus seeks a refund of his deposit. From https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/92/eng@2026-04-30 1
page 1 of 2
the correspondences filed, the Respondent was given adequate notice of the Claimant’s intention and subsequent demands for the rent deposit at various instances. 6. A tenancy deposit is refundable upon termination of tenancy, subject only to lawful deductions as held in High Court Civil Appeal No. E516 Of 2024 Vivienne Eyase Versus Impulse Holdings Limited. Have lawful deductions been proved herein? The Respondent avers that repair were done to the house and appliances amounting to Kshs. 539,980/- in what would constitute special damages. 7. In Kheri v Kubai (Civil Appeal E051 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 6385 (KLR) (2 May 2025) (Judgment) the court held that special damages must be pleaded and proved. The repair and replacement costs pleaded by the Respondent which constitute special damages have not been substantiated as the Respondent has relied on a painting quotation and a proforma invoice which documents do not of themselves constitute proof of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Respondent. The counterclaim is thus dismissed. 8. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Claimant has proved its case on a balance of probabilities. Judgment is thus entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 230,000/- together with costs and interest at court rates from date of filling. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE………30TH…. DAY OF……… APRIL… 2026 HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR In the presence of; …Mr. Origi h/b for Ms. Nanjali. for Claimant; ……Mr. Gatuguta… for Respondent C/A Sabina https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/92/eng@2026-04-30 2
page 2 of 2