Chabeda v Munywoki t/a Emba Safaris & Car Rentals & another (Claim E97630 of 2025) [2026] SCC 169 (KLR)

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 claimant proved the claim for Kshs. 60,000/= against the respondent. 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. It was not in dispute that the claimant rented the subject vehicle for 6 days at a daily rate of Kshs. 10,000/=. It was also not in dispute that the claimant paid Kshs. 60,000/= being the total amount for the hired days. Further, it was not in dispute that the claimant returned the subject vehicle the next day on account of unsuitability. 8. Though the 1st respondent challenged the claim for mechanical issues, I do note that the claimant’s case was that the door was not closing well, and the back seat was rocking and unstable. The issue was therefore not mobility/usability of the vehicle, but suitability. Though the respondent claimed that the claimant had inspected the vehicle before paying, such allegation was unsupported. Further, the defects complained of could have been missed until the vehicle was used. For instance, it would not have been easy to note a rocking and unstable back seat until the vehicle was in use. 9. Noting that the respondent did not dispute that the vehicle was returned a day later, I do find the claim to be awardable. The 1st respondent did not also deny that she undertook to repay the amounts within 14 days. 10. I do however note that the claimant utilized the vehicle for a day. There was nothing to show that the claimant communicated the dissatisfaction at the earliest opportunity and neither was there an explanation given as to why the vehicle was not returned on the same day. 11. As such, I find that the sum of Kshs. 10,000/= is deductible from the total payment of Kshs. 60,000/=. 12. As regards the 2nd respondent, I do find that the claimant did not establish any contractual relationship with him noting that payment and communication were between the claimant and 1st respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to refund the payment. 13. The upshot is that the claim is partly successful. To that end, I hereby order as follows: - 14. 1. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the 1st respondent for the sum of Kshs. 50,000/=. 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. 7,000/=. The same shall be settled by the 1st respondent only. The 1st 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/2026/169/eng@2026-07-17 2

page 2 of 2