Muthoni t/a Gramon Enterprises v Murage & another (Commercial Case E14680 of 2025) [2026] SCC 156 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 156 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MILIMANI SMALL CLAIMS COURT COMMERCIAL CASE E14680 OF 2025 GW KIAMAH, RM JULY 10, 2026 BETWEEN GRACE MUTHONI T/A GRAMON ENTERPRISES .......................... CLAIMANT AND MWANGI MURAGE ...................................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT MURIUKI MWORIA ................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 17/9/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the Kshs. 272,345/= plus costs and interests on the basis that it supplied the respondent with 177 units of 24 Core FAT Empty (Code FAT24) at a unit price of Kshs. 3,500/ = and raised Invoice No. INV193 dated 23/7/2025 for a total sum of Kshs. 619,500/= payable within 30 days. That the goods were duly delivered and received by the respondent but th invoice remained unsettled despite demands thus the filing of the claim. 2. The respondent filed the response dated 13/10/2025 denying the claim and further denied that the goods were delivered. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the SCC Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 27/1/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 16/1/1026. I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings and evidence on record. 4. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven its claim as against the respondent on a balance of probabilities. See the court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. It also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Small Claims Court Act (SCC Act). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/156/eng@2026-07-10 1
page 1 of 2
5. There was on record the invoice number INV193 dated 23/7/2025 as well as delivery note dated 21/7/2025. There was also on record whatsapp correspondence between the parties wherein the said invoice was sent, and the respondent communicated that he was waiting for the cheque to be signed then delivered to the claimant. The same was not done and the claimant vehemently followed up on payment and the respondent consistently promised that the invoice would be settled. At all times, the pending invoice was acknowledged and there was no challenge on delivery. That line of defense could not succeed when measured against the evidence on record. 6. From the record, there was enough evidence to infer that it was more likely that the claimant delivered goods, raised an invoice, and pursued settlement yet the same remained unpaid. Though the respondent stated that there was no LPO or proof that the respondent ordered the delivery, I do note that the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt such that the claimant would need to strictly proof the claim. The evidence on record created a suficient likelihood that the claimant’s allegations were likely to have happened. 7. In the end, I do find that the claim is merited and I hereby order as follows: - 8. 1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 619,000/=. 2. The sum shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full. 3. The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 40,000/=. The respondent is granted a 30-day stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026 HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/156/eng@2026-07-10 2
page 2 of 2