REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF KENYA AT UASIN GISHU COUNTY ELDORET SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASE NUMBER: SCCCOMM/E4900/2025 REMO CHEMICALS AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS LTD VS TARAKWA SECONDARY SCHOOL JUDGMENT 1. The claimant approached this court vide a Statement of Claim dated 7th October, 2025 claiming ksh 605,993/= from the Respondent. The claim is anchored on allegations of breach of contract arising from the supply and delivery of laboratory equipment and laboratory chemicals by the Claimant to the Respondent between 16th March 2024 to 19th November 2024. The Respondent opposed the claim by filing a response to the statement of claim. In its defense, the respondent issued a general denial, contesting the existence of a contract and putting the Claimant to strict proof regarding the supply and delivery of the said goods. 2. Parties took directions on 13th July, 2026 to have the matter proceed under Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act, parties were directed to file their respective submissions within 7 days. At the time of writing this judgment only the claimant had complied by filing its submissions dated 16th July, 2026, the same have been considered. Upon looking at the claim, response and the submissions the issues for determination are: a. whether there was a contract for supply between parties herein b. Whether the claimant is entitled to ksh 605,993/-
page 1 of 4
3. The claimant's director, one Stanley Kiplagat Baskwony, in his statement indicates that on diverse dates between 16th March 2024 to 19th November 2024, the respondent requested and received various laboratory equipment and chemicals. Invoices were raised sequentially, resulting in a total outstanding sum of KSh. 605,993/=. Despite a formal demand letter dated 13th August 2025, the Respondent failed, neglected, or refused to settle the outstanding amount, thereby prompting the institution of this suit. Crucially, the Claimant’s submissions disclose a material development; post-filing of the suit, on 9th October 2025, the Respondent made a partial payment of Kshs. 100,000/=. The Claimant contends that this payment constitutes an unequivocal admission and acknowledgement of the commercial transaction and debt owed, leaving a revised outstanding balance of Kshs. 505,993/=. The Respondent's defense was a blanket denial of the entire claim. In paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of its Response, the Respondent denied ever entering into a contract with the Claimant and further denied receipt of the lab equipment and chemicals to the tune of Kshs. 605,993/-. 4. The standard of proof in civil matters, including small claims commercial disputes, is on a balance of probabilities. The burden initially rests on the Claimant to establish that a transaction occurred and that a debt remains unpaid. The Claimant provided comprehensive documentary evidence, including a detailed ledger statement showing specific invoice numbers and corresponding transaction dates in December, 2023 and 2024. It is evident that on the claimant received some payment from the respondent on 05/22/2024 and 08/07/2024 totaling to ksh 200,000/-. Furthermore, the Claimant produced a demand letter stamped as received by the school's Principal. While the
page 2 of 4
Respondent filed a general denial asserting that no contract existed, this defense is completely dismantled by their subsequent conduct. 5. The Respondent cannot logically claim that no transaction or contract existed while simultaneously making a substantial payment towards the selfsame account balance after being sued. This Court finds that the part-payment of Ksh. 100,000/= amounts to an implicit admission of liability and validates the Claimant's claim. The Respondent offered no evidence to dispute this subsequent payment, nor did they provide alternative receipts or proof of full settlement. Consequently, the Claimant has successfully demonstrated on a balance of probability that goods were supplied and that an outstanding balance of Ksh. 505,993/= remains justly due and owing. 6. Under section 28 of the Sale of goods act it is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods, and of the buyer to accept and pay for them in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. Section 29 goes further to talk of delivery of goods and payments of the price are concurrent conditions. Section 49 of the same act states the action for breach of contract and action for price. Isaac Mugweru Kirabat/a Isamu Refri- Electricals vs Net Plan East Africa Limited (2018). .....................The buyer is obliged to pay. 7. Regarding the prayer for general damages, this is a liquidated claim arising out of a commercial debt contract. The loss is fully compensated through the award of the principal sum costs and interest. 8. In the upshot, the Claimant has proved its case to the required legal standard. Judgment is hereby entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for ksh.505,993/= (Kenya Shillings Five Hundred and Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety-Three only). The claimant shall have costs and interest.
page 3 of 4
30 days stay of execution is granted. Judgement dated and delivered at Eldoret This 31st day of July, 2026. M.E Aligula- RM In the presence of C/A: Mr. Lepatoiye Claimant: Rono H/B for Mr. Tarigo for the Claimant Respondent: N/A
page 4 of 4