Umoja Magharibi Kenya Limited v Wafula (Commercial Case E093 of 2026) [2026] SCC 238 (KLR) (11 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 238 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT MALABA COMMERCIAL CASE E093 OF 2026 AZ OGANGE, RM SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 BETWEEN UMOJA MAGHARIBI KENYA LIMITED ............................................. CLAIMANT AND ANTHONY WANJALA WAFULA ..................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Claimant/Applicant has moved this Court vide a Notice of Motion dated 25th August 2026 and brought under Rule 29 of the Small Claims Court Rules, seeking review of the judgment delivered on 12th August 2026. 2. The application is principally premised on an alleged error in the computation of the amounts paid by the Respondent towards the loan which is the subject of the claim. 3. The Applicant's case, in summary, is that the loan amount advanced to the Respondent was Kshs. 65,125/=, which was disbursed on 30th April 2022. It is contended that in arriving at the nding that the Respondent had paid Kshs. 74,222/= and consequently overpaid the loan by Kshs. 9,097/=, the Court inadvertently took into account payments appearing in the Respondent's M-Pesa statements which pre-dated the disbursement of the loan. 4. The Respondent opposes the application. His position is that the loan was cleared and that the application is an attempt to reopen and re-litigate a matter which had already been determined by the Court. He further contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review its judgment. 5. I have considered the application, the supporting adavit, the replying adavit, the judgment delivered on 12th August 2026 and the documents on record. 6. The jurisdiction of this Court to review its decisions is expressly provided for under Rule 29 of the Small Claims Court Rules, 2019. The Rule permits the Court to review a decree or order where it is https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/238/eng@2026-09-11 1
page 1 of 4
demonstrated that the same has an error apparent on the face of the record or a clerical or arithmetical mistake. The question therefore is whether the Applicant has demonstrated an error of the nature contemplated by Rule 29. 7. Upon reconsidering the record and, in particular, the M-Pesa statements relied upon by the parties, I have undertaken a fresh verication of the computation of the payments attributable to the loan in question. 8. There is no dispute that the loan which forms the subject of the claim was Kshs. 65,125/= and that the same was disbursed on 30th April 2022. 9. I have considered the respective entries in the M-Pesa statements. The payments attributable to the period following the disbursement of the loan are as follows: a. 3rd March 2025 Kshs 500/= b. 9th December 2024 Kshs 550/= c. 3rd December 2024 Kshs. 500/= d. 28th November 2024 Kshs. 1,000/= e. 22nd November 2024 Kshs. 200/= f. 18th November 2024 Kshs. 300/= g. 1st October 2023 Kshs. 400/= h. 20th August 2023 Kshs. 400/= i. 3rd August 2023 Kshs. 500/= j. 11th July 2023 Kshs. 750/= k. 26th June 2023 Kshs. 500/= l. 4th June 2023 Kshs. 500/= m. 28th May 2023 Kshs. 500/= n. 27th May 2023 Kshs. 500/= o. 26th May 2023 Kshs. 500/= p. 3rd May 2023 Kshs. 300/= q. 13th April 2023 Kshs. 500/= r. 11th April 2023 Kshs. 500/= s. 20th March 2023 Kshs. 200/= t. 22nd February 2023 Kshs. 300/= u. 20th February 2023 Kshs. 300/= v. 23rd January 2023 Kshs. 400/= w. 18th January 2023 Kshs. 400/= x. 15th December 2022 at 2341hours Kshs. 200/= https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/238/eng@2026-09-11 2
page 2 of 4
y. 15th December 2022 at 2155hours Kshs. 200/= z. 25th November 2022 Kshs. 450/= aa. 21st November 2022 Kshs. 500/= ab. 27th October 2022 Kshs. 600/= ac. 19th October 2022 Kshs. 800/= ad. 21st September 2022 Kshs. 500/= ae. 20th September 2022 Kshs. 980/= af. 27th August 2022 Kshs. 3,000/= ag. 18th August 2022 Kshs. 2,000/= ah. 5th August 2022 Kshs. 2,000/= ai. 20th July 2022 Kshs. 1,950/= aj. 1st July 2022 Kshs. 3,000/= ak. 20th June 2022 at 2352 hours Kshs. 1,800/= al. 20th June 2022 at 2351hours Kshs. 200/= am. 11th June 2022 Kshs. 1,000/= an. 9th June 2022 Kshs. 600/= ao. 11th May 2022 Kshs. 150/= ap. 9th May 2022 Kshs. 3,600/= Total Kshs. 33,530/= The arithmetic is therefore straightforward: Kshs. 65,125/= – Kshs. 33,530/= = Kshs. 31,595/=. 10. I nd that the error in the judgment arose not from the arithmetic operation itself, but from the identication of the payments properly attributable to the loan in question. In the judgment, payments appearing in the M-Pesa statements for periods preceding 30th April 2022, being the date upon which the loan was disbursed, were inadvertently taken into account in determining the amount paid towards that loan. 11. The eect was that the Court arrived at the gure of Kshs. 74,222/= as having been paid by the Respondent and consequently concluded that there had been an overpayment of Kshs. 9,097/=. 12. Having now carefully correlated the dates of the payments with the date of disbursement, I am satised that the said nding was erroneous. A payment appearing in an account before the loan in question was advanced cannot be treated as a repayment towards that subsequent loan. 13. In the present case, the correction sought is not founded upon a new piece of evidence or a dierent interpretation of the law. The relevant M-Pesa statements were already part of the record. The error becomes apparent upon simply aligning the dates of the payments with the date of disbursement and performing the arithmetic. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/238/eng@2026-09-11 3
page 3 of 4
14. I therefore nd that the error complained of is an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Rule 29 of the Small Claims Court Rules. The Court is not being asked to hear the claim afresh. It is correcting an erroneous computation arising from the treatment of payments made before the loan was disbursed. 15. The nding in the judgment that the Respondent had paid Kshs. 74,222/= and consequently overpaid the loan by Kshs. 9,097/= cannot therefore stand. 16. The correct position, based on the payments attributable to the loan in issue, is that the Respondent paid Kshs. 33,530/= against the principal sum of Kshs. 65,125/=, leaving a balance of Kshs. 31,595/=. 17. Consequently, the Applicant has demonstrated sucient basis for review of the judgment dated 12th August 2026. Conclusion 18. In the result, the Notice of Motion dated 25th August 2026 is hereby allowed. The judgment delivered on 12th August 2026 is hereby reviewed and varied to the extent that: a. The nding that the Respondent had paid Kshs. 74,222/= and had consequently overpaid the loan by Kshs. 9,097/= is hereby set aside. b. The Court nds that the Respondent paid Kshs. 33,530/= towards the loan of Kshs. 65,125/=. c. The outstanding balance is therefore Kshs. 31,595/=. d. Judgment is accordingly entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 31,595/=, together with interest and costs which I assess at Kshs. 4,000/=. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MALABA SMALL CLAIMS COURT THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. A.Z. OGANGE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR 11.09.2026 In the Presence of Mr. Wattangah for the Claimant N/A the Respondent Court Assistant: Paul Otieno https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/238/eng@2026-09-11 4
page 4 of 4