The respondent filed suit (Milimani CMCC No. 2802 of 2021) before the trial court seeking the following reliefs:
(a) A sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48
(b) Interest on (a) above at the court rate of 12% per annum or such other rate as the court may order from 3rd April 2019 until payment in full.
(c) Costs of the suit.
(d) Interest on (c) at court rates.
The respondents' case was that the sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48 was the amount outstanding for various goods supplied to the appellants at their request and secured by the 2nd appellant’s personal guarantee.
On 30.10.2021, the respondent filed an application dated 30.10.2021 seeking for a judgment on admission for the sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48 on the grounds that the appellants had signed an acknowledgement of debt under the hand of the 2nd appellant confirming that the appellants owed the respondent Ksh. 9,159,320.00
The respondent further contended that in a bid to settle their debts, the 1st and 2nd appellants issued various cheques amounting to Kshs. 9,278,000 in favour of the plaintiff and that the cheques were however dishonoured on presentation.
The appellants opposed the application seeking judgment on admission; The appellants response was that some of the goods ordered by them were not supplied/collected for one reason or the other but the respondent loaded the same into the appellant’s account.
The appellant’s case was that in May 2019 they were in need of roofing materials from the respondent to service an order by a client based at Mtito Andei when on placing the order to the respondent, with whom they had been in business for over two years, the respondent's representative insisted that the appellant had not signed its quarterly confirmation document and that respondent’s directors had insisted that the same must be signed before any further supply. That as a result the appellants had no choice but to sign the confirmation using a figure given by the respondent’s representative of Ksh 9,159,320 which figure was tentative pending reconciliation.
The appellants further averred that the returned cheques were for payment for amounts which were not in contention and in any event the same were replaced. The learned magistrate having considered the application for judgement on admission and the response before him allowed the same, thus necessitating this appeal.
The appellants appealled against the ruling on the grounds summarised as follows;
(a) That the learned magistrate misapprehended and misapplied the law on judgement on admission.
(b) That the learned magistrate erred in allowing the application yet there was no admission.
The appellants submitted that the learned magistrate failed to take into account the appellants' defence expressly denying the debt. That the trial court ignored the appellants’ replying affidavit to the application, which affidavit had explained the circumstances under which the letter dated 31.03.2019 was signed. The appellants’ case is that the acknowledgment note could not be termed as unequivocal.
The respondent submitted that there was clear admission of debt by the appellants as seen in a document titled ‘confirmation of balances as at 31.3.2019’ duly signed by the 2nd appellant. That the 2nd appellant other than signing the confirmation went further to indicate the figure of 9,159,320 as due to the respondent.
The respondent further submitted that the 1st and 2nd appellants had issued various cheques in favour of the respondent totaling Kshs. 9,278,000, which cheques on presentation for payment were dishonoured. The respondent cited the case of Choitram & Another -v- Nazari (1984) KLR 116 (KLR) , the case of ASL Credit Limited v Joyce Wangui Wachira , T/A Paddy Distributors & Another (2022) KEHC 10283 (KLR) .
The respondent's case is that the learned magistrate correctly applied the law and jurisprudence with respect to judgment on admission in arriving at his conclusion.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
This being a first appeal, this court is under a duty to re-evaluate and re-analyse the material before the trial court and make its own decision.
Order 13 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which in the marginal notes is headed ‘Judgement on admission’ provides as follows;
‘Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think just.’
A reading of the above rule shows that admissions may be made by any party either (a) On pleadings; or
(b) Otherwise
The respondent’s case is that the appellants admitted the debt through a letter of confirmation of balance due dated 9.5.2019. In the letter, the 2nd appellant confirmed that the balance of Ksh 9,159,320 is due to the respondent as at 31.3.2019. I have noted that the respondent on their part had contended that what was due as at 31.3.2019 was 9,420,784.54. The 2nd appellant in her hand stated the amount to be Ksh 9,159,320, an indication that she did her own reconciliation and differed with the figure suggested by the respondent. The appellants never exhibited any evidence to suggest that the letter of confirmation of debt dated 9.5.2019 was made under duress or undue influence. There is no evidence to show that prior to the filing of the case before the trial court, the appellants had raised queries about goods loaded into their account but not supplied.
Further, the appellants issued cheques in payment for the amounts demanded by the respondent. The cheques were returned unpaid. There is no evidence of replacement made of the unpaid cheques. The appellants equally failed to show that the cheques were recalled.
Judgement on admission is not a right but a discretion and should not be entered if objections that go to the root of the matter are raised against entry. In the case of Choitram -v- Nazari (1984) KLR 327, Madan,J (as he then was) held;
“Admissions have to be plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they may result in judgment being entered. They must be obvious on the face of them without requiring a magnifying glass to ascertain their meaning. Much depends upon the language used. The admissions must leave no room for doubt…”
In the case of Guardian Bank Limited -v- Jambo Biscuits Kenya Ltd (2014) eKLR, the court held that;
“ The principle applicable in judgment on admission is that the admission must be very clear and unequivocal on a plain perusal of the admission. The admission in the sense of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not one which requires copious interpretations or material to discern. It must be plainly and readily discernible. In such clear admission, like J.B. Havelock J stated in the case of 747 Freighter Conversion LLC -v- One Jet One Airways Kenya Ltd & 3 Others HCCC No. 445 of 2012, there is no point in letting a matter go for a trial for there is nothing to be gained in a trial.”
Similarly in Ideal Ceramics Limited v Suraya Property Group Ltd (2017 ) eKLR J. Onguto (as he then was) stated;
“The law on summary procedure vide a judgment on admission is now relatively clear. The purpose of the law laid out under Order 13 of Civil Procedure Rules is to ensure that a party whose entitlement is evidently due and admitted does not wait for determination by the court of a non-existent question. It is undesirable to litigate when there is no question or issue of fact or law. The summary process in this regard assists in ensuring that unnecessary costs and delays are not invited”.
I find and hold that the letter of confirmation of balance signed by the 2nd appellant was plain, clear, unconditional and unambiguous. The letter of confirmation of balance taken together with the dishonored cheques stand and speak for themselves.
The appellants’ contention that there is an issue of reconciliation does not appear to originate from the parties’ documents presented before court.
There is nothing to show that the letter of confirmation of balance was made in error or under circumstances that would warrant vitiating the same.
It is my finding that the trial magistrate correctly exercised his discretion. The respondent met the threshold of judgement on admission as the admission relied on was clear.
I consequently find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually in KAKAMEGA this 22nd of JULY 2026
D.O. ONYANGO, JUDGE.
2
(a) A sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48
(b) Interest on (a) above at the court rate of 12% per annum or such other rate as the court may order from 3rd April 2019 until payment in full.
(c) Costs of the suit.
(d) Interest on (c) at court rates.
The respondents' case was that the sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48 was the amount outstanding for various goods supplied to the appellants at their request and secured by the 2nd appellant’s personal guarantee.
On 30.10.2021, the respondent filed an application dated 30.10.2021 seeking for a judgment on admission for the sum of Kshs. 9,085,477.48 on the grounds that the appellants had signed an acknowledgement of debt under the hand of the 2nd appellant confirming that the appellants owed the respondent Ksh. 9,159,320.00
The respondent further contended that in a bid to settle their debts, the 1st and 2nd appellants issued various cheques amounting to Kshs. 9,278,000 in favour of the plaintiff and that the cheques were however dishonoured on presentation.
The appellants opposed the application seeking judgment on admission; The appellants response was that some of the goods ordered by them were not supplied/collected for one reason or the other but the respondent loaded the same into the appellant’s account.
The appellant’s case was that in May 2019 they were in need of roofing materials from the respondent to service an order by a client based at Mtito Andei when on placing the order to the respondent, with whom they had been in business for over two years, the respondent's representative insisted that the appellant had not signed its quarterly confirmation document and that respondent’s directors had insisted that the same must be signed before any further supply. That as a result the appellants had no choice but to sign the confirmation using a figure given by the respondent’s representative of Ksh 9,159,320 which figure was tentative pending reconciliation.
The appellants further averred that the returned cheques were for payment for amounts which were not in contention and in any event the same were replaced. The learned magistrate having considered the application for judgement on admission and the response before him allowed the same, thus necessitating this appeal.
The appellants appealled against the ruling on the grounds summarised as follows;
(a) That the learned magistrate misapprehended and misapplied the law on judgement on admission.
(b) That the learned magistrate erred in allowing the application yet there was no admission.
The appellants submitted that the learned magistrate failed to take into account the appellants' defence expressly denying the debt. That the trial court ignored the appellants’ replying affidavit to the application, which affidavit had explained the circumstances under which the letter dated 31.03.2019 was signed. The appellants’ case is that the acknowledgment note could not be termed as unequivocal.
The respondent submitted that there was clear admission of debt by the appellants as seen in a document titled ‘confirmation of balances as at 31.3.2019’ duly signed by the 2nd appellant. That the 2nd appellant other than signing the confirmation went further to indicate the figure of 9,159,320 as due to the respondent.
The respondent further submitted that the 1st and 2nd appellants had issued various cheques in favour of the respondent totaling Kshs. 9,278,000, which cheques on presentation for payment were dishonoured. The respondent cited the case of Choitram & Another -v- Nazari (1984) KLR 116 (KLR) , the case of ASL Credit Limited v Joyce Wangui Wachira , T/A Paddy Distributors & Another (2022) KEHC 10283 (KLR) .
The respondent's case is that the learned magistrate correctly applied the law and jurisprudence with respect to judgment on admission in arriving at his conclusion.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
This being a first appeal, this court is under a duty to re-evaluate and re-analyse the material before the trial court and make its own decision.
Order 13 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which in the marginal notes is headed ‘Judgement on admission’ provides as follows;
‘Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think just.’
A reading of the above rule shows that admissions may be made by any party either (a) On pleadings; or
(b) Otherwise
The respondent’s case is that the appellants admitted the debt through a letter of confirmation of balance due dated 9.5.2019. In the letter, the 2nd appellant confirmed that the balance of Ksh 9,159,320 is due to the respondent as at 31.3.2019. I have noted that the respondent on their part had contended that what was due as at 31.3.2019 was 9,420,784.54. The 2nd appellant in her hand stated the amount to be Ksh 9,159,320, an indication that she did her own reconciliation and differed with the figure suggested by the respondent. The appellants never exhibited any evidence to suggest that the letter of confirmation of debt dated 9.5.2019 was made under duress or undue influence. There is no evidence to show that prior to the filing of the case before the trial court, the appellants had raised queries about goods loaded into their account but not supplied.
Further, the appellants issued cheques in payment for the amounts demanded by the respondent. The cheques were returned unpaid. There is no evidence of replacement made of the unpaid cheques. The appellants equally failed to show that the cheques were recalled.
Judgement on admission is not a right but a discretion and should not be entered if objections that go to the root of the matter are raised against entry. In the case of Choitram -v- Nazari (1984) KLR 327, Madan,J (as he then was) held;
“Admissions have to be plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they may result in judgment being entered. They must be obvious on the face of them without requiring a magnifying glass to ascertain their meaning. Much depends upon the language used. The admissions must leave no room for doubt…”
In the case of Guardian Bank Limited -v- Jambo Biscuits Kenya Ltd (2014) eKLR, the court held that;
“ The principle applicable in judgment on admission is that the admission must be very clear and unequivocal on a plain perusal of the admission. The admission in the sense of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not one which requires copious interpretations or material to discern. It must be plainly and readily discernible. In such clear admission, like J.B. Havelock J stated in the case of 747 Freighter Conversion LLC -v- One Jet One Airways Kenya Ltd & 3 Others HCCC No. 445 of 2012, there is no point in letting a matter go for a trial for there is nothing to be gained in a trial.”
Similarly in Ideal Ceramics Limited v Suraya Property Group Ltd (2017 ) eKLR J. Onguto (as he then was) stated;
“The law on summary procedure vide a judgment on admission is now relatively clear. The purpose of the law laid out under Order 13 of Civil Procedure Rules is to ensure that a party whose entitlement is evidently due and admitted does not wait for determination by the court of a non-existent question. It is undesirable to litigate when there is no question or issue of fact or law. The summary process in this regard assists in ensuring that unnecessary costs and delays are not invited”.
I find and hold that the letter of confirmation of balance signed by the 2nd appellant was plain, clear, unconditional and unambiguous. The letter of confirmation of balance taken together with the dishonored cheques stand and speak for themselves.
The appellants’ contention that there is an issue of reconciliation does not appear to originate from the parties’ documents presented before court.
There is nothing to show that the letter of confirmation of balance was made in error or under circumstances that would warrant vitiating the same.
It is my finding that the trial magistrate correctly exercised his discretion. The respondent met the threshold of judgement on admission as the admission relied on was clear.
I consequently find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED virtually in KAKAMEGA this 22nd of JULY 2026
D.O. ONYANGO, JUDGE.
2