Ocharo v Motor Consult Services Ltd (Claim E99834 of 2025) [2026] SCC 166 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 166 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MILIMANI SMALL CLAIMS COURT CLAIM E99834 OF 2025 GW KIAMAH, RM JULY 17, 2026 BETWEEN ABIGAIL MORAA OCHARO ................................................................. CLAIMANT AND MOTOR CONSULT SERVICES LTD ................................................ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 2/9/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for Kshs. 700,000/= on the basis that she sold the respondent the subject motor vehicle KBR 791N for Kshs. 1 million out of which the respondent paid Kshs. 300,000/= leaving a balance of Kshs. 700,000/= which remained due. 2. The respondent filed a response dated 6/10/2025 and admitted purchasing the subject vehicle as claimed. It was averred that the balance of Kshs. 7000,000/= had been fully paid and there was no pending balance. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 26/1/2026. The respondent’s were not on record. 4. I have considered the submissions on record as well as the pleadings and documents before this court. The main issue for determination is whether the balance of Kshs. 700,000/= was pending as claimed. 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. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/166/eng@2026-07-17 1
page 1 of 2
7. It was not in dispute that the respondent purchased the subject vehicle at a price of Kshs. 1 million. The deposit of Kshs 300,000/= was acknowledged. The agreement dated 7/3/2025 provided that the balance of Kshs. 700,000/= was to be paid by 31/3/2025. 8. Though the respondent claimed that the balance had been cleared on 31/3/2025, there was no evidence to proof the allegation of payment. It was upon the respondent to proof the allegation of payment. In the absence of receipts, bank records, acknowledgments or any other proof of payment, I do find that the allegation of payment was not proven. Consequently, I do find that the balance of Kshs. 700,000/ = was successfully proven. 9. In the circumstances, I do find and hold that the claim is merited. 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. 700,000/=. 2. The amount shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full. 3. The claimant is awarded costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=. The respondent is granted 30 days stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 HON. GLADYS W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/166/eng@2026-07-17 2
page 2 of 2