Background
1. In her decision of 6th February 2025, the Learned Trial Magistrate, allowed the Respondent’s claim and entered judgment in her favour against the Appellant and ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent a sum of Kshs 818,624/=, costs of Kshs 5,000/= and interest from the date of filing the claim.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 28th February 2025. He relied on eight (8) Grounds of Appeal.His written submissions were dated 13th October 2025 while those of the Respondent were dated 3rd March 2026. The Judgment herein is, therefore, based on the said written submissions by the parties.
Analysis of the Appeal.
3. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals from the Small Claims Court is strictly circumscribed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and are limited to matters of law and the appeal is final. Whereas there has been no universally accepted definition of the term ‘matters of law’, there has been some working definitions thereto. In Peter Gichuki King'ara vs. IEBC & 2 others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2013, Court of Appeal held that a decision challenged on the basis of wrongful exercise of discretion raises a point of law.
4. Having looked at the Grounds of Appeal and the parties written submissions, it appeared to this court that the issue that had been placed before it for determination was as follows: -
Whether or not the Trial Court erred in its finding that the Respondent had proved her case.
5. The Appellant submitted that he entered into a sale of business premises with the Respondent but due to economic and financial hardship occasioned by Covid 19 pandemic, his business collapsed leading to its closure. He claimed that he was jobless and had a young family and he was their sole breadwinner and he was not able to settle the amount due. He was emphatic that the breach of the contract was not intentional as the business never generated income due to the impact of Covid 19 pandemic.
6. He urged this court to find that the Trial Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence he tendered thus arriving in an erroneous judgment, that the Trial Court relied on the wrong provisions of the law and failed to give reasons for its findings and that the Respondent failed to prove her case to the required standard.
7. In rejoinder, the Respondent submitted that the appeal failed to specify how the Trial Court misapplied or misapprehended the law and the facts and she cited Mugambi vs National Bank of Kenya [2010] eKLR where the court stated that dissatisfaction with a judgment was insufficient to constitute a ground of appeal. She pointed out that the Appellant admitted existence of the debt and she asserted that the principle of finality in civil proceedings dictated that admissions were binding unless there was a demonstrable miscarriage of justice as was held in the case of Kenya Revenue Authority v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd [2011] eKLR.
8. She argued that the appeal did not introduce any fresh evidence as the Appellant’s ground reargued the evidence and she cited the case of Githongo vs Kenya Revenue Authority [2014] eKLR that, civil appellate courts intervene on factual findings only when there is a misapprehension of evidence or a clear misdirection.
9. On assertion by the Appellant that she failed to prove her case, she was emphatic that the Trial Court considered her documentary evidence, the acknowledgement of debt by the Appellant and applied the balance of probabilities as was recognised in Ochieng v Okoth [2016] eKLR. She also pointed out that the judgment by the Learned magistrate referenced the evidence considered contrary to the Appellant’s contention and she referred this court to the holding in Stella Nasimiyu Wangila & Another v Raphael Oduro Wanyamah [2016] eKLR, that appellate courts should not disturb trial court findings where there was no misdirection and the case of Mutua vs Ndegwa [2013] eKLR, where the court opined that findings drawn from admitted evidence were binding unless misdirection was shown.
10. She submitted that submissions were considered and addressed in the judgment, the judgment demonstrated correct application of law and that the findings were reasonable and supported by evidence contrary to the Appellant’s assertions.
11. Notably, the Respondent filed a claim before the Trial Court whereby she claimed that they entered to a business sale agreement for Kshs 1,163,875/= whereby the Appellant paid Kshs 450,000/= for business good will and he was to pay Kshs 713,875/= for stock which he failed to. She averred that the parties agreed that due to breach of the agreement, the Appellant was to pay 3% per annum with the amount at the filing of the suit being Kshs 104,749/= which amount the Appellant failed to pay.
12. The Appellant filed a response whereby he admitted the entering into an agreement for sale of business premises save that the business was closed due to financial constraints occasioned by Covid 19. He claimed that he explained this to the Respondent in response to her demand and that he was ready to look for a way to settle part of the amount.
13. The matter proceeded for hearing and the Respondent testified that the Appellant never paid any amount apart from the first installment of Kshs 150,000/= which was paid in November 2019. A demand letter was written and the Appellant promised to pay Kshs 20,000/= per month. They also agreed that he was to pay interest in default but he failed to pay. She stated that she was claiming Kshs 818,624/=.
14. On his part, the Appellant testified that he bought the business with intent to pay from it but the business did not have a good turnout and Covid 19 affected the business and he closed down. He stated that he was not refusing to pay and he sought court’s indulgence to allow him look for a job to pay the debt. He told the court that he could only afford Kshs 1,000/= per month.
Determination.
15. The High Court, therefore, is duty-bound to assist the Small Claims Court realize it’s said objective and it ought to consider appeals from the said Court through those special lenses.
16. Having said so, since the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof, then that is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
17. From the proceedings at the Trial Court, the Appellant testified and admitted buying the business and he informed Court on cross examination that he had not refused to repay the money, he sought court’s intervention to allow him to look for a job and prepay the money. From the Record of appeal an agreement was availed which was duly signed by both parties, this was not disputed by either party at the Trial Court.
18. The Appellant herein responded to the Claim at the Trial Court and admitted entering into an agreement and averred that the business was closed due to covid. He reiterated his commitment to make arrangements to look for a solution to cater for the amount owed once normalcy had resumed.
19. I therefore find that the Trial Court evaluated the evidence well and reached the right decision based on facts and law. The Appellant’s appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 31st day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
Appellant present acting in person
Respondent present acting in person
Michael – Court Assistant.
1. In her decision of 6th February 2025, the Learned Trial Magistrate, allowed the Respondent’s claim and entered judgment in her favour against the Appellant and ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent a sum of Kshs 818,624/=, costs of Kshs 5,000/= and interest from the date of filing the claim.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 28th February 2025. He relied on eight (8) Grounds of Appeal.His written submissions were dated 13th October 2025 while those of the Respondent were dated 3rd March 2026. The Judgment herein is, therefore, based on the said written submissions by the parties.
Analysis of the Appeal.
3. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals from the Small Claims Court is strictly circumscribed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and are limited to matters of law and the appeal is final. Whereas there has been no universally accepted definition of the term ‘matters of law’, there has been some working definitions thereto. In Peter Gichuki King'ara vs. IEBC & 2 others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2013, Court of Appeal held that a decision challenged on the basis of wrongful exercise of discretion raises a point of law.
4. Having looked at the Grounds of Appeal and the parties written submissions, it appeared to this court that the issue that had been placed before it for determination was as follows: -
Whether or not the Trial Court erred in its finding that the Respondent had proved her case.
5. The Appellant submitted that he entered into a sale of business premises with the Respondent but due to economic and financial hardship occasioned by Covid 19 pandemic, his business collapsed leading to its closure. He claimed that he was jobless and had a young family and he was their sole breadwinner and he was not able to settle the amount due. He was emphatic that the breach of the contract was not intentional as the business never generated income due to the impact of Covid 19 pandemic.
6. He urged this court to find that the Trial Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence he tendered thus arriving in an erroneous judgment, that the Trial Court relied on the wrong provisions of the law and failed to give reasons for its findings and that the Respondent failed to prove her case to the required standard.
7. In rejoinder, the Respondent submitted that the appeal failed to specify how the Trial Court misapplied or misapprehended the law and the facts and she cited Mugambi vs National Bank of Kenya [2010] eKLR where the court stated that dissatisfaction with a judgment was insufficient to constitute a ground of appeal. She pointed out that the Appellant admitted existence of the debt and she asserted that the principle of finality in civil proceedings dictated that admissions were binding unless there was a demonstrable miscarriage of justice as was held in the case of Kenya Revenue Authority v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd [2011] eKLR.
8. She argued that the appeal did not introduce any fresh evidence as the Appellant’s ground reargued the evidence and she cited the case of Githongo vs Kenya Revenue Authority [2014] eKLR that, civil appellate courts intervene on factual findings only when there is a misapprehension of evidence or a clear misdirection.
9. On assertion by the Appellant that she failed to prove her case, she was emphatic that the Trial Court considered her documentary evidence, the acknowledgement of debt by the Appellant and applied the balance of probabilities as was recognised in Ochieng v Okoth [2016] eKLR. She also pointed out that the judgment by the Learned magistrate referenced the evidence considered contrary to the Appellant’s contention and she referred this court to the holding in Stella Nasimiyu Wangila & Another v Raphael Oduro Wanyamah [2016] eKLR, that appellate courts should not disturb trial court findings where there was no misdirection and the case of Mutua vs Ndegwa [2013] eKLR, where the court opined that findings drawn from admitted evidence were binding unless misdirection was shown.
10. She submitted that submissions were considered and addressed in the judgment, the judgment demonstrated correct application of law and that the findings were reasonable and supported by evidence contrary to the Appellant’s assertions.
11. Notably, the Respondent filed a claim before the Trial Court whereby she claimed that they entered to a business sale agreement for Kshs 1,163,875/= whereby the Appellant paid Kshs 450,000/= for business good will and he was to pay Kshs 713,875/= for stock which he failed to. She averred that the parties agreed that due to breach of the agreement, the Appellant was to pay 3% per annum with the amount at the filing of the suit being Kshs 104,749/= which amount the Appellant failed to pay.
12. The Appellant filed a response whereby he admitted the entering into an agreement for sale of business premises save that the business was closed due to financial constraints occasioned by Covid 19. He claimed that he explained this to the Respondent in response to her demand and that he was ready to look for a way to settle part of the amount.
13. The matter proceeded for hearing and the Respondent testified that the Appellant never paid any amount apart from the first installment of Kshs 150,000/= which was paid in November 2019. A demand letter was written and the Appellant promised to pay Kshs 20,000/= per month. They also agreed that he was to pay interest in default but he failed to pay. She stated that she was claiming Kshs 818,624/=.
14. On his part, the Appellant testified that he bought the business with intent to pay from it but the business did not have a good turnout and Covid 19 affected the business and he closed down. He stated that he was not refusing to pay and he sought court’s indulgence to allow him look for a job to pay the debt. He told the court that he could only afford Kshs 1,000/= per month.
Determination.
15. The High Court, therefore, is duty-bound to assist the Small Claims Court realize it’s said objective and it ought to consider appeals from the said Court through those special lenses.
16. Having said so, since the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof, then that is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
17. From the proceedings at the Trial Court, the Appellant testified and admitted buying the business and he informed Court on cross examination that he had not refused to repay the money, he sought court’s intervention to allow him to look for a job and prepay the money. From the Record of appeal an agreement was availed which was duly signed by both parties, this was not disputed by either party at the Trial Court.
18. The Appellant herein responded to the Claim at the Trial Court and admitted entering into an agreement and averred that the business was closed due to covid. He reiterated his commitment to make arrangements to look for a solution to cater for the amount owed once normalcy had resumed.
19. I therefore find that the Trial Court evaluated the evidence well and reached the right decision based on facts and law. The Appellant’s appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 31st day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
Appellant present acting in person
Respondent present acting in person
Michael – Court Assistant.