(Being an appeal from the judgment and decree of Hon. Nasimiyu RM/Adjudicator delivered on the 29 th September 2025 in NBI SCCC No. E96347 of 2025)
1. The appellant filed a claim through its statement of claim dated 13 th June 2025 in which it claimed the sum of USD 6136.40 from the respondent being the balance for the purchase of hardware from the agreed purchase price of USD 10.335.60
2. The respondent entered appearance and filed a response to the Statement of claim dated 21 st July 2025 denying all allegations pleaded against it and conversely counterclaimed against the appellant for a declaration that the appellant was in breach of the agreement.
3. The appellant in rejoinder to the counterclaim, denied breaching the agreement, reiterated the contents of the statement of claim and proceeded to pray for judgment in their favour as per their claim.
4. In her judgment, the trial adjudicator found that both the appellant and the respondent had failed to prove their respective cases on a balance of probabilities and therefore dismissed both the main claim and the counterclaim. The court further directed that each party would bear its own costs.
5. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment/decree, the appellant lodged this appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29 th September 2025 and raised one (1) ground of appeal as follows: -
a) The learned Adjudicator erred both in fact and in law in dismissing the appellant’s claim.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions filed by both parties. This being a first appeal, the Court is duty bound to evaluate the evidence before the trial court afresh and come to its own independent findings and conclusions. See Selle vs. Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123.
7. Before the trial court, the parties proceeded to call their respective witnesses who testified and were subsequently cross-examined. The parties’ respective advocates on record then filed written submissions.
8. It is upon this basis that the trial court proceeded to determine the suit before it.
9. I have considered the evidence tendered before the trial court and the submissions made before me. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides for the jurisdiction of this Court in determining appeals from the Small Claims Court. It provides thus; -
1) A person aggrieved by the decision or an order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law.
2) An appeal from any decision or order referred to in subsection (1) shall be final.”
10. It is clear from the foregoing that the jurisdiction of this Court from the Small Claims Court is only on matters of law and not factual issues.
11. In this appeal, the question for determination by this Court that arises from the grounds of appeal pleaded by the appellant is whether the trial court wrongly found in favour of the respondent on a balance of probabilities, which is an issue of fact.
12. In Wanjiru v Kiilu (Civil Appeal 90 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 8881 (KLR) (19 July 2024) (Judgment) , the High Court appreciated its appellate jurisdiction in respect of appeals emanating from decisions of the Small Claims Court as follows:
“It therefore follows that appeals originating from the Small Claims Court to this court can only be on the points of law. Consequently, this court cannot, in appeals emanating from that Court, entertain an invitation to interfere with the factual findings of the trial court. The duty of this court when dealing with such appeals, is therefore equivalent to that of the Court of Appeal in its capacity as a second appellate court.”
13. In the case of Charles Kipkoech Leting v Express (K) Ltd & another [2018] eKLR , the Court of Appeal clarified that where a right of appeal is confined to questions of law only, an appellate court is duty bound to accept the findings of fact of the lower court and should not interfere with the decisions of the trial court on the factual issues “unless it is apparent that, on the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion, which would be the same as holding the decision is bad in law”.
14. In its judgment, the trial court made a finding that indeed there was an oral contract between the parties. The trial court further made a finding of fact that payment of the contract sum was to be made thirty (30) days after delivery of the hardware and the license and not before delivery. Pursuant to the said finding, the trial court concluded that the claimant was in breach of the oral agreements for failing to deliver the license up to the date of the trial. These are findings of fact. The appeal herein challenges the trial court’s findings on questions of fact and therefore flies in the face of section 38 (Supra).
15. In Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 424 , it was held that:
‘An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact unless they are based on no evidence or on a misapprehension of the evidence.’
16. In view of the evidence tabled before the trial court, I do not find anything wrong with the said findings as to call for this court’s intervention. In the premises, this Court is not minded to disturb the trial Court’s findings on issues of fact and hereby upholds the same. The appeal is therefore without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
David Mburu
Judge
11/06/2026
Dated, signed, delivered virtually and uploaded to the Case Tracking System this 11 th day of June, 2026.
Page 1 of 5
1. The appellant filed a claim through its statement of claim dated 13 th June 2025 in which it claimed the sum of USD 6136.40 from the respondent being the balance for the purchase of hardware from the agreed purchase price of USD 10.335.60
2. The respondent entered appearance and filed a response to the Statement of claim dated 21 st July 2025 denying all allegations pleaded against it and conversely counterclaimed against the appellant for a declaration that the appellant was in breach of the agreement.
3. The appellant in rejoinder to the counterclaim, denied breaching the agreement, reiterated the contents of the statement of claim and proceeded to pray for judgment in their favour as per their claim.
4. In her judgment, the trial adjudicator found that both the appellant and the respondent had failed to prove their respective cases on a balance of probabilities and therefore dismissed both the main claim and the counterclaim. The court further directed that each party would bear its own costs.
5. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment/decree, the appellant lodged this appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29 th September 2025 and raised one (1) ground of appeal as follows: -
a) The learned Adjudicator erred both in fact and in law in dismissing the appellant’s claim.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions filed by both parties. This being a first appeal, the Court is duty bound to evaluate the evidence before the trial court afresh and come to its own independent findings and conclusions. See Selle vs. Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123.
7. Before the trial court, the parties proceeded to call their respective witnesses who testified and were subsequently cross-examined. The parties’ respective advocates on record then filed written submissions.
8. It is upon this basis that the trial court proceeded to determine the suit before it.
9. I have considered the evidence tendered before the trial court and the submissions made before me. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides for the jurisdiction of this Court in determining appeals from the Small Claims Court. It provides thus; -
1) A person aggrieved by the decision or an order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law.
2) An appeal from any decision or order referred to in subsection (1) shall be final.”
10. It is clear from the foregoing that the jurisdiction of this Court from the Small Claims Court is only on matters of law and not factual issues.
11. In this appeal, the question for determination by this Court that arises from the grounds of appeal pleaded by the appellant is whether the trial court wrongly found in favour of the respondent on a balance of probabilities, which is an issue of fact.
12. In Wanjiru v Kiilu (Civil Appeal 90 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 8881 (KLR) (19 July 2024) (Judgment) , the High Court appreciated its appellate jurisdiction in respect of appeals emanating from decisions of the Small Claims Court as follows:
“It therefore follows that appeals originating from the Small Claims Court to this court can only be on the points of law. Consequently, this court cannot, in appeals emanating from that Court, entertain an invitation to interfere with the factual findings of the trial court. The duty of this court when dealing with such appeals, is therefore equivalent to that of the Court of Appeal in its capacity as a second appellate court.”
13. In the case of Charles Kipkoech Leting v Express (K) Ltd & another [2018] eKLR , the Court of Appeal clarified that where a right of appeal is confined to questions of law only, an appellate court is duty bound to accept the findings of fact of the lower court and should not interfere with the decisions of the trial court on the factual issues “unless it is apparent that, on the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion, which would be the same as holding the decision is bad in law”.
14. In its judgment, the trial court made a finding that indeed there was an oral contract between the parties. The trial court further made a finding of fact that payment of the contract sum was to be made thirty (30) days after delivery of the hardware and the license and not before delivery. Pursuant to the said finding, the trial court concluded that the claimant was in breach of the oral agreements for failing to deliver the license up to the date of the trial. These are findings of fact. The appeal herein challenges the trial court’s findings on questions of fact and therefore flies in the face of section 38 (Supra).
15. In Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 424 , it was held that:
‘An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact unless they are based on no evidence or on a misapprehension of the evidence.’
16. In view of the evidence tabled before the trial court, I do not find anything wrong with the said findings as to call for this court’s intervention. In the premises, this Court is not minded to disturb the trial Court’s findings on issues of fact and hereby upholds the same. The appeal is therefore without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
David Mburu
Judge
11/06/2026
Dated, signed, delivered virtually and uploaded to the Case Tracking System this 11 th day of June, 2026.
Page 1 of 5