REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS SCCOMM NO. E98283 OF 2025 MARIA PAULA OBADO………………….......................................CLAIMANT VERSUS GEORGE OSBORNE YOGO…...…………....………. …….....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the amended statement of claim dated 17/9/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 784,450/= plus costs and interests being monies allegedly advanced to the respondent between the years 2022 and 2024. 2. The respondent filed the amended response dated 15/6/2026 and denied the existence of any loan agreement. He pleaded that the parties were in a romantic relationship between 2022 and 2024 during which they mutually supported each other financially. That any monies exchanged were voluntary contributions made out of affection, goodwill, and shared living arrangements and not pursuant to any lending arrangement. It was further pleaded that he also made 1|Page JUDGMENT SCCE98283 OF 2025
page 1 of 5
numerous transfers to the claimant during the subsistence of the relationship. 3. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 27/10/2026 whereas the respondents were dated 15/6/2026. I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings and documents on record. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven the claim as against the respondent. 4. The standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities. See the court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. It is also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. 5. I have considered the court record. While the evidence demonstrates that monies moved from the claimant to the respondent, it is trite that proof of transfer alone is not proof of a loan. There must be evidence demonstrating a common intention that the sums advanced were repayable. I do note that there was nothing on record that pointed this Court to any written loan agreement, acknowledgment of indebtedness, repayment schedule, or other unequivocal evidence indicating that the transfers constituted loans. On the contrary, the material before the Court reveals that the parties were in a romantic relationship during the period when the transfers were made and that financial support flowed both ways. 2|Page JUDGMENT SCCE98283 OF 2025
page 2 of 5
6. Further, the inconsistencies in the amount claimed raise doubt as to the precise debt allegedly owed. The claimant also relied on WhatsApp communications and a schedule of transactions allegedly sent to the respondent. However, even from the said communications, the amounts claimed are inconsistent. At various points, the claimant demanded differing sums including Kshs. 502,050/=, while in these proceedings she seeks Kshs. 735,300/=, and elsewhere references are made to Kshs. 784,450/= and Kshs. 914,100/=. This inconsistency casts doubt on the exact amount said to be due and owing. 7. Further, while the WhatsApp conversations and transaction schedules may demonstrate that money was transferred to the respondent on numerous occasions, they do not establish that the aggregate sums constituted loans repayable on demand. The messages do not contain a clear acknowledgment by the respondent that the total sums transferred were debts, nor did they disclose agreed terms of repayment. In the Court’s view, proof of transfers alone is insufficient to prove a loan agreement where the parties were admittedly in a romantic relationship and money moved between them in the course of that relationship. 8. It is trite that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. In the circumstances of this case, I find that the claimant failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the monies advanced were loans as opposed to voluntary financial support exchanged during the party’s relationship. 3|Page JUDGMENT SCCE98283 OF 2025
page 3 of 5
9. In the end, I am not convinced that the claimant proved the claim on a balance of probabilities. 10. The upshot is that the claim is found to be unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Noting the nature of the relationship between the parties, each party shall bear their own costs. It is so decreed. DATED and DELIVERED via CTS at NAIROBI this 14TH Day of August 2026 HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR 4|Page JUDGMENT SCCE98283 OF 2025
page 4 of 5
5|Page JUDGMENT SCCE98283 OF 2025
page 5 of 5