Naiyanoi t/a Erilizton G Suppliers v Gabeire A Group Ltd (Commercial Case E108409 of 2025) [2026] SCC 164 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 164 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MILIMANI SMALL CLAIMS COURT COMMERCIAL CASE E108409 OF 2025 GW KIAMAH, RM JULY 17, 2026 BETWEEN ELIZABETH NAIYANOI T/A ERILIZTON G SUPPLIERS ................. CLAIMANT AND GABEIRE A GROUP LIMITED ......................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 9/12/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 974,000/= plus costs and interests on the basis that it supplied the building materials at their side amounting to Kshs. 1,562,000/= with interest at 20% until payment in full. That the respondent only paid Kshs. 900,000/= leaving a balance of Kshs. 974,000/=. 2. The respondent filed the response dated 5/1/2026 and denied entering into any agreement with the claimant. It also denied receiving any supplies from the claimant or making any payments to her as alleged. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the SCC Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 12/4/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 8/5/2026. 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). 5. The claimant produced the agreement dated 12/2/2025 in support of its case. The same was between the claimant’s trading name Erilizton G Suppliers and the respondent. The same was for supply of ballast and sand (dust) at a delivery amount of Kshs. 1,562,000/= plus interest of 20%. The respondent was thus to pay Kshs. 1,874,400/= on 15/5/2025. The same was executed by one Musa Kamala and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/164/eng@2026-07-17 1
page 1 of 2
endorsed with the respondent’s stamp. In the absence of evidence impeaching the authenticity of the agreement or the authority of the signatory, I am satisfied that the agreement constituted a binding contract between the parties. 6. The claimant also produced a schedule of the dust and ballast delivered to the respondent indicating quantities and date of delivery. The records were consistent with the contractual obligations undertaken by the claimant under the agreement. 7. There was also on record proof of payments for Kshs. 900,000/= made into the claimant’s Equity Bank account. I do note that the payments were made by one Piyabalo Kamala. Though the similarity in surname between the signatory to the contract and the person making payment is not by itself determinative, when considered together with the existence of the executed agreement and the respondent’s stamp on the contract, the payments provide strong corroborative evidence that the transaction was indeed undertaken by the respondent. 8. Despite denying the transaction, the respondent did not produce anything to disown either Moses or Piyabalo Kamala by demonstrating that he was not in a position to transact on behalf of the respondent. The respondent did not also challenge the authenticity of the stamp appearing on the agreement. 9. I do find that the documentary evidence produced by the claimant demonstrates that there was a binding agreement and follow up transaction and payment. As such, the claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied the agreed building materials to the respondent pursuant to the agreement, and that the respondent only partly settled the contractual sum. The balance is thus awardable. 10. However, the claim for 20% interest on the balance is denied noting that the total contractual sum of Kshs. 1,874,400/= had already incorporated 20% interest. Awarding further interest rates of 20% would amount to double recovery. 11. In the end, I hereby order as follows: - 12. 1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 974,000/=. 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. 10,000/=. The respondent is granted a 30-day stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 HON. GLADYS W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/164/eng@2026-07-17 2
page 2 of 2