Background
1. The Respondent commenced Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022 by a Plaint dated 21st November 2022 filed in. In the plaint, the Respondent pleaded that she was the second wife of the Appellant, having been married under Abagusii customary law in 2017, and that she used her own savings to purchase motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C (Toyota Probox, silver in colour) for business purposes.
2. The Respondent pleaded that although the motor vehicle was purchased using her funds, it was registered in the Appellant’s name after she was induced to release her national identity card for purposes of completing the transaction. The Respondent contended that the Appellant subsequently moved the vehicle to his first wife’s home and took steps to deal with it as his own, thereby necessitating the suit.
3. Together with the plaint, the Respondent relied on, inter alia, Mpesa statements, bank statements, business permit documents, and oral testimony to demonstrate payment of a total sum of KES. 530,000/= towards the purchase of the motor vehicle, as well as insurance and ancillary expenses.
4. The Appellant filed a defence dated 22nd December 2022 in which he denied the Respondent’s claim and asserted that he was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle, having allegedly purchased it himself through a hire purchase arrangement. He contended that the Respondent did not contribute to the purchase price as alleged.
5. During trial, the Respondent testified on her own behalf and called witnesses, including evidence relating to the source and flow of funds used in the transaction. The Appellant testified and admitted during cross-examination that he did not have documentary proof of payment for the purchase price of the motor vehicle.
6. By judgment delivered on 26th March 2024 in Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
7. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, lodged a Memorandum of Appeal dated 01st April 2024. The appeal is premised on grounds that:
1) That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in the interpretation and application of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, particularly on ownership of a motor vehicle.
2) That the learned magistrate failed to appreciate the existence of a binding hire purchase agreement in favour of the Appellant.
3) That the learned magistrate failed to appreciate that payment of part of the purchase price by the Respondent could not confer ownership.
4) That the learned magistrate was biased, predetermined the matter, and reached an unfair decision.
5) That the learned magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
6) That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in the interpretation and application of the Traffic Act (Cap 403), the law on ownership of motor vehicles, evaluation of evidence, and in allegedly exhibiting bias and predetermination.
8. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant relied on his written submissions dated 10th October 2025 together with the List of Authorities filed therein. The Respondent opposed the appeal through written submissions dated 17th November 2025.
9. As this is a first appeal, this Court is enjoined to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and to draw its own independent conclusions. However, in doing so, it must bear in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses and should therefore accord due deference to the trial court’s findings. The appellate court will not lightly interfere with those findings unless it is demonstrated that the trial court acted on no evidence, misapprehended the evidence, or applied the wrong legal principles in arriving at its determination. (See Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123).
Issues for Determination
10. Having considered the Memorandum of Appeal, the record of appeal, and the written submissions filed by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:
1) Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in determining ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C, including whether the statutory presumption arising from registration was rebutted by evidence.
2) Whether the Appellant proved the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement in his favour.
3) Whether the allegation of bias, predetermination, or unfairness on the part of the learned trial magistrate was established.
4) What orders should issue as to the appeal and costs.
Analysis and Determination
1) Ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C
11. The central question in this appeal is whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in determining ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C. The Appellant contends that registration of the motor vehicle in his name was conclusive proof of ownership, while the Respondent maintains that she purchased the vehicle using her own funds and that registration in the Appellant’s name was procured for convenience and later abused.
12. Section 8 of the Traffic Act, Cap 403 Laws of Kenya, provides that the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner thereof. The provision creates a rebuttable presumption, not an indefeasible title. The trial court was therefore obligated to interrogate whether evidence had been placed before it capable of rebutting that presumption.
13. The law on burden of proof in civil cases is well settled. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya, provide that whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were adduced.
14. In the present case, the Respondent asserted that she paid the purchase price of the subject motor vehicle. The initial legal burden therefore lay upon her to prove that fact. Once she adduced evidence capable of establishing payment on a balance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifted to the Appellant to rebut that evidence.
15. The Respondent produced before the trial court Mpesa statements, bank withdrawal records, and oral testimony demonstrating payment of a total sum of KES. 530,000 towards the purchase of the motor vehicle, together with ancillary expenses such as insurance and tracking. This evidence was subjected to cross-examination.
16. The Appellant, by contrast, admitted during cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence to show that he paid the purchase price of the motor vehicle or that he entered into a hire purchase or sale agreement with the vendor. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Respondent’s financial documentation remained materially unchallenged.
17. The Appellant’s reliance on registration alone was insufficient to displace the Respondent’s evidence. In Securicor Kenya Limited v Kyumba Holdings Limited, [2005] eKLR the Court of Appeal held that a logbook is only prima facie evidence of ownership and that the presumption arising therefrom may be displaced by evidence showing otherwise.
18. The same position was reaffirmed in Joel Muga Opija v East Africa Sea Food Limited [2013] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal stated that although a certificate of search or logbook establishes prima facie ownership, ownership remains a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the evidence.
19. The Respondent’s evidence was not limited to bare assertions. It demonstrated source of funds, capacity to pay, and actual payment. The Appellant did not challenge the authenticity of the documents produced nor provide a plausible alternative explanation for the Respondent’s financial records.
20. The Respondent further relied on Ignatius Makau · Mutisya V Reuben Musyoki Muia, [2015] eKLR where the court held that registration of a motor vehicle is not conclusive proof of ownership and that courts must interrogate the surrounding circumstances, including who paid the purchase price and who exercised beneficial ownership.
21. The Appellant also cited Osapil v Kaddy (2000) 1 EA 187, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Uganda, which held that a logbook is only prima facie evidence of title and that the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is presumed to be the owner unless proved otherwise. That authority supports the Respondent’s case, as it underscores the rebuttable nature of registration.
22. In addition, the matrimonial context in which the vehicle was acquired could not be ignored. In EMW v RMK [2022] KEELC 1497 (KLR), the court emphasized that the source of funds and contribution towards acquisition remain central considerations where property is acquired during the subsistence of a marriage.
23. Having re-evaluated the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent discharged her legal and evidential burden on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant failed to rebut that evidence and cannot succeed on the basis of registration alone.
24. The learned trial magistrate therefore did not err in law or fact in finding that the presumption of ownership arising from registration had been rebutted and that the Respondent was the beneficial owner of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C.
2) Whether the appellant proved the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement
25. The Appellant contended that he acquired motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C through a hire purchase or sale arrangement and that this entitled him to ownership of the vehicle. The burden of proof in respect of this assertion lay squarely upon the Appellant.
26. Under sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, he who alleges the existence of a fact must prove it. Where a party asserts the existence of a contractual relationship, whether by way of sale or hire purchase, the law requires proof of the agreement and its material terms.
27. Before the trial court, the Appellant did not produce any written hire purchase agreement, sale agreement, receipts, financing documents, or correspondence with the alleged vendor or financier. No witness was called to corroborate the existence of such an arrangement.
28. The Appellant’s claim rested solely on oral assertions, which were not supported by documentary or independent evidence. In civil proceedings, bare allegations, however earnestly made, cannot discharge the burden of proof where documentary evidence would reasonably be expected.
29. The learned trial magistrate was therefore entitled to reject the Appellant’s assertion that the motor vehicle was acquired through a hire purchase or sale agreement. On re-evaluation of the record, this Court finds no error in that conclusion.
30. Accordingly, the Appellant failed to prove the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement, and this ground of appeal must fail.
3) Whether bias, predetermination, or unfairness was established
31. The Appellant further alleged that the learned trial magistrate was biased and predetermined the matter against him. Allegations of judicial bias are grave, as they strike at the heart of the administration of justice, and must therefore be supported by cogent and credible evidence.
32. The applicable test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The mere fact that a court decides a matter against a party does not, without more, constitute bias.
33. Upon perusal of the record, there is no indication that the Appellant applied for the recusal of the trial magistrate, nor is there any material demonstrating conduct, remarks, or procedural irregularities suggestive of partiality or predetermination.
34. The Appellant did not point to any specific instance in the proceedings where the trial court departed from its judicial role or denied him a fair hearing. The proceedings disclose that both parties were accorded an opportunity to present their respective cases.
35. In the absence of evidence meeting the requisite threshold, this Court finds that the allegation of bias or unfairness is unsubstantiated. This ground of appeal is therefore without merit.
Disposition
36. Having re-evaluated the entire record and having found that the learned trial magistrate properly directed himself on the law and the evidence, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and it is hereby ordered:
1) The appeal herein is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.
2) The judgment and decree in Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022 delivered on 26th March 2024 are hereby affirmed.
3) Costs ordinarily follow the event, and no sufficient cause has been shown to warrant a departure from that principle. The costs of this appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
1. The Respondent commenced Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022 by a Plaint dated 21st November 2022 filed in. In the plaint, the Respondent pleaded that she was the second wife of the Appellant, having been married under Abagusii customary law in 2017, and that she used her own savings to purchase motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C (Toyota Probox, silver in colour) for business purposes.
2. The Respondent pleaded that although the motor vehicle was purchased using her funds, it was registered in the Appellant’s name after she was induced to release her national identity card for purposes of completing the transaction. The Respondent contended that the Appellant subsequently moved the vehicle to his first wife’s home and took steps to deal with it as his own, thereby necessitating the suit.
3. Together with the plaint, the Respondent relied on, inter alia, Mpesa statements, bank statements, business permit documents, and oral testimony to demonstrate payment of a total sum of KES. 530,000/= towards the purchase of the motor vehicle, as well as insurance and ancillary expenses.
4. The Appellant filed a defence dated 22nd December 2022 in which he denied the Respondent’s claim and asserted that he was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle, having allegedly purchased it himself through a hire purchase arrangement. He contended that the Respondent did not contribute to the purchase price as alleged.
5. During trial, the Respondent testified on her own behalf and called witnesses, including evidence relating to the source and flow of funds used in the transaction. The Appellant testified and admitted during cross-examination that he did not have documentary proof of payment for the purchase price of the motor vehicle.
6. By judgment delivered on 26th March 2024 in Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
7. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, lodged a Memorandum of Appeal dated 01st April 2024. The appeal is premised on grounds that:
1) That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in the interpretation and application of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, particularly on ownership of a motor vehicle.
2) That the learned magistrate failed to appreciate the existence of a binding hire purchase agreement in favour of the Appellant.
3) That the learned magistrate failed to appreciate that payment of part of the purchase price by the Respondent could not confer ownership.
4) That the learned magistrate was biased, predetermined the matter, and reached an unfair decision.
5) That the learned magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
6) That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in the interpretation and application of the Traffic Act (Cap 403), the law on ownership of motor vehicles, evaluation of evidence, and in allegedly exhibiting bias and predetermination.
8. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant relied on his written submissions dated 10th October 2025 together with the List of Authorities filed therein. The Respondent opposed the appeal through written submissions dated 17th November 2025.
9. As this is a first appeal, this Court is enjoined to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and to draw its own independent conclusions. However, in doing so, it must bear in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses and should therefore accord due deference to the trial court’s findings. The appellate court will not lightly interfere with those findings unless it is demonstrated that the trial court acted on no evidence, misapprehended the evidence, or applied the wrong legal principles in arriving at its determination. (See Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123).
Issues for Determination
10. Having considered the Memorandum of Appeal, the record of appeal, and the written submissions filed by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:
1) Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in determining ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C, including whether the statutory presumption arising from registration was rebutted by evidence.
2) Whether the Appellant proved the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement in his favour.
3) Whether the allegation of bias, predetermination, or unfairness on the part of the learned trial magistrate was established.
4) What orders should issue as to the appeal and costs.
Analysis and Determination
1) Ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C
11. The central question in this appeal is whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in determining ownership of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C. The Appellant contends that registration of the motor vehicle in his name was conclusive proof of ownership, while the Respondent maintains that she purchased the vehicle using her own funds and that registration in the Appellant’s name was procured for convenience and later abused.
12. Section 8 of the Traffic Act, Cap 403 Laws of Kenya, provides that the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner thereof. The provision creates a rebuttable presumption, not an indefeasible title. The trial court was therefore obligated to interrogate whether evidence had been placed before it capable of rebutting that presumption.
13. The law on burden of proof in civil cases is well settled. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya, provide that whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were adduced.
14. In the present case, the Respondent asserted that she paid the purchase price of the subject motor vehicle. The initial legal burden therefore lay upon her to prove that fact. Once she adduced evidence capable of establishing payment on a balance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifted to the Appellant to rebut that evidence.
15. The Respondent produced before the trial court Mpesa statements, bank withdrawal records, and oral testimony demonstrating payment of a total sum of KES. 530,000 towards the purchase of the motor vehicle, together with ancillary expenses such as insurance and tracking. This evidence was subjected to cross-examination.
16. The Appellant, by contrast, admitted during cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence to show that he paid the purchase price of the motor vehicle or that he entered into a hire purchase or sale agreement with the vendor. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Respondent’s financial documentation remained materially unchallenged.
17. The Appellant’s reliance on registration alone was insufficient to displace the Respondent’s evidence. In Securicor Kenya Limited v Kyumba Holdings Limited, [2005] eKLR the Court of Appeal held that a logbook is only prima facie evidence of ownership and that the presumption arising therefrom may be displaced by evidence showing otherwise.
18. The same position was reaffirmed in Joel Muga Opija v East Africa Sea Food Limited [2013] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal stated that although a certificate of search or logbook establishes prima facie ownership, ownership remains a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the evidence.
19. The Respondent’s evidence was not limited to bare assertions. It demonstrated source of funds, capacity to pay, and actual payment. The Appellant did not challenge the authenticity of the documents produced nor provide a plausible alternative explanation for the Respondent’s financial records.
20. The Respondent further relied on Ignatius Makau · Mutisya V Reuben Musyoki Muia, [2015] eKLR where the court held that registration of a motor vehicle is not conclusive proof of ownership and that courts must interrogate the surrounding circumstances, including who paid the purchase price and who exercised beneficial ownership.
21. The Appellant also cited Osapil v Kaddy (2000) 1 EA 187, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Uganda, which held that a logbook is only prima facie evidence of title and that the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is presumed to be the owner unless proved otherwise. That authority supports the Respondent’s case, as it underscores the rebuttable nature of registration.
22. In addition, the matrimonial context in which the vehicle was acquired could not be ignored. In EMW v RMK [2022] KEELC 1497 (KLR), the court emphasized that the source of funds and contribution towards acquisition remain central considerations where property is acquired during the subsistence of a marriage.
23. Having re-evaluated the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent discharged her legal and evidential burden on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant failed to rebut that evidence and cannot succeed on the basis of registration alone.
24. The learned trial magistrate therefore did not err in law or fact in finding that the presumption of ownership arising from registration had been rebutted and that the Respondent was the beneficial owner of motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C.
2) Whether the appellant proved the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement
25. The Appellant contended that he acquired motor vehicle registration number KDC 356C through a hire purchase or sale arrangement and that this entitled him to ownership of the vehicle. The burden of proof in respect of this assertion lay squarely upon the Appellant.
26. Under sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, he who alleges the existence of a fact must prove it. Where a party asserts the existence of a contractual relationship, whether by way of sale or hire purchase, the law requires proof of the agreement and its material terms.
27. Before the trial court, the Appellant did not produce any written hire purchase agreement, sale agreement, receipts, financing documents, or correspondence with the alleged vendor or financier. No witness was called to corroborate the existence of such an arrangement.
28. The Appellant’s claim rested solely on oral assertions, which were not supported by documentary or independent evidence. In civil proceedings, bare allegations, however earnestly made, cannot discharge the burden of proof where documentary evidence would reasonably be expected.
29. The learned trial magistrate was therefore entitled to reject the Appellant’s assertion that the motor vehicle was acquired through a hire purchase or sale agreement. On re-evaluation of the record, this Court finds no error in that conclusion.
30. Accordingly, the Appellant failed to prove the existence of a binding hire purchase or sale agreement, and this ground of appeal must fail.
3) Whether bias, predetermination, or unfairness was established
31. The Appellant further alleged that the learned trial magistrate was biased and predetermined the matter against him. Allegations of judicial bias are grave, as they strike at the heart of the administration of justice, and must therefore be supported by cogent and credible evidence.
32. The applicable test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The mere fact that a court decides a matter against a party does not, without more, constitute bias.
33. Upon perusal of the record, there is no indication that the Appellant applied for the recusal of the trial magistrate, nor is there any material demonstrating conduct, remarks, or procedural irregularities suggestive of partiality or predetermination.
34. The Appellant did not point to any specific instance in the proceedings where the trial court departed from its judicial role or denied him a fair hearing. The proceedings disclose that both parties were accorded an opportunity to present their respective cases.
35. In the absence of evidence meeting the requisite threshold, this Court finds that the allegation of bias or unfairness is unsubstantiated. This ground of appeal is therefore without merit.
Disposition
36. Having re-evaluated the entire record and having found that the learned trial magistrate properly directed himself on the law and the evidence, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and it is hereby ordered:
1) The appeal herein is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.
2) The judgment and decree in Nyamira MCCC E181 of 2022 delivered on 26th March 2024 are hereby affirmed.
3) Costs ordinarily follow the event, and no sufficient cause has been shown to warrant a departure from that principle. The costs of this appeal are awarded to the Respondent.