1. In a judgment delivered on 2nd June 2025, the Hon Gatambia Ndungu, RM, then of the Small Claims Court, found for the respondent, then the claimant, in the sum of Kes 89,076/95; of the said sum of Kes 41,021 was admitted by the appellant. In respect of the amount that was not admitted, the learned magistrate found that the defence of the appellant was a bare denial. The court relied on the decision of the court in Margaret Njeri Mbugua v Kirk Mweya Nyaga [2016] KECA 288 (KLR) where it was held that:-
“ In Thorn v Holdsworth (1876)3 Ch.637 at 640, which was quoted with approval in Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited [1996]
eKLR, the court held:-
“When a party in any pleading denied an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it be alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum, or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And so, when a matter of fact is alleged with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it as alleged along those circumstances, but fair and substantial answer must be given.”
2. We must examine the pleadings to understand the matter before the court below and to determine whether the learned adjudicator was correct in his finding.
3. In the statement of claim dated 3rd September 2024, Careenas Holdings Ltd claimed that it provided car hire and tour services for a total sum of Kes 89,076/95 to the appellant on diverse dates between June 2022 and 28the December 2022. Out of the invoiced amount, the appellant paid Kes 11,021, leaving a balance of Kes 89,076/95. In support of its case, it attached invoices and a self-generated ledger that identified the invoice numbers and the amounts claimed.
4. In its response, the appellant, as the respondent in the court below, denied that it owed the claimant (now respondent) any money. The statement of response was dated 16th December 2024. This was supported by the written statement of Mr Hanif Samji dated 16th December 2024. He was categorical that:
“I specifically deny the allegations made in the statement of claim that the Respondent failed to pay for services rendered. I confirm that the Respondent indeed utilized car hire services from the claimant in 2022 but fully discharged its payment obligations. The allegations suggesting an outstanding sum of Kes 89,076/96 are baseless.”
5. A statement attached to the response, however, showed that Kes 41,021/- was owed. The inadvertent admission was seized upon by the respondent in the reply to the statement of response dated 7th January 2025.
6. To prove that the money was owed, the respondent produced screenshots of invoices and WhatsApp messages and a certificate of electronic evidence.
7. Judgment on admission was entered for the sum of Kes 41,021. The court directed that the matter would proceed by way of documents only. It is thereafter that it delivered the impugned Judgment.
8. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision. Its Memorandum of Appeal is dated 28th February 2025. The same has 7 grounds, which I shall list below:
1. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the Respondent had sufficiently proved its claim for Kes 48,055.96 despite the glaring insufficiencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the evidence presented;
2. That the Honourable Court misdirected itself by basing its decision predominantly on invoices purportedly sent via WhatsApp and an extract from a delivery book, without subjecting the said documents to proper authentication as mandatorily required under the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya;
3. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to appreciate that the Respondent did not discharge the legal burden of proving an enforceable contractual debt against the Appellant, given the lack of a properly executed agreement or acknowledgement of liability;
4. That the Honourable Court unjustifiably disregarded the Appellant's well-articulated defence and statement of accounts, which demonstrated that all payments due to the Respondent had been settled in full and that the additional sum claimed was unsubstantiated, thereby occasioning grave prejudice to the Appellant;
5. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law by improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, contrary to the settled principles under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, thereby wrongfully requiring the Appellant to disprove a claim that was inadequately substantiated by the Respondent.
6. That the Honourable Court erred in law and in fact by failing to scrutinize the Respondent's invoices, some of which were issued after the period of engagement between, the parties had lapsed, thus rendering them unreliable as evidence of an existing debt.
7. That the Honourable Court's decision was against the weight of the evidence presented, leading to a manifest miscarriage of justice by granting an award that was not justifiable in law or fact.
9. The appellant seeks to have the appeal allowed in its entirety, for the judgment of the Small Claims Court to be set aside, for the respondent’s claim in the Small Claims Court to be dismissed with costs, and for it to be awarded costs of this court and of the court below.
10. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. I shall set out a summary of each party’s submissions below.
11. The submissions of the appellant are dated 24th September 2025. It was urged that the court was wrong to rely on improperly authenticated and self-serving documents, for failing to hold the respondent to the ordinary standards of proof for commercial indebtedness and for impermissibly shifting the evidential burden of proof to the appellant.
12. The appellant contended that documentary proof of indebtedness must be admissible and authentically proved. It denied that the evidence presented was credible. The appellant relied on the case of Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd v Cannon Assurance (Kenya) Ltd [2019]eKLR for the proposition that mere production of invoices without proof of delivery and acknowledgement cannot establish indebtedness.
13. The appellant contended that the court below shifted the burden of proof and improperly relied on negative inference under section 119 of the Evidence Act.
14. On its part, the Respondent, in submissions dated 23rd September 2025, urged that the appeal be dismissed. It stated that in its response to the statement of claim, the appellant conceded that it was in a business relationship. It urged that it produced contemporaneous records in the form of detailed invoices, that the invoices were delivered in both electronic and physical form from February to June 2023, and that they were supported by screenshots and a certificate under section 106B of the Evidence Act, sworn by Imtiaz Pradhan on 7th January 2025. It contended that none of the invoices were matched to payment.
15. The Respondent relied on the case of Mburu v Kiambi & Another [2025] KEHC 5108 (KLR) and also Benson Kangara T/a Pinkstone Enterprises v Nairobi City County [2019]eKLR.
16. I have considered the record of appeal, the submissions of the parties and the law. I note that under section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act, I may only consider matters of law. I am in agreement with the counsel for the appellant that questions regarding proper exercise of discretion by the learned adjudicator are an issue of law which this court can hear and determine.
17. Having established that the appeal is proper, I will proceed to consider whether the learned magistrate properly evaluated the evidence. Did he exercise his discretion lawfully, or was it whimsical or capricious?
18. In the case of Mbogo & another v Shah [1968] EA 93, the Court held that:-
“That this court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has acted on matters on which it should not have acted, or because it has failed to take into consideration matters it should have taken into consideration, and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion.”
19. Save for its own self-generated statement of account and witness statement, the appellant did not tender any other evidence in the court below to controvert what the respondent produced.
20. Although the appellant contended that the documents were not contemporaneous, I am of the view that the respondent’s evidence was remarkably consistent and was backed by the certificate of electronic evidence.
21. I have perused the record of the court below. It is true that the appellant's response was a bare denial. I agree with the dictum in Margaret Njeri Mbugua v Kirk Mweya Nyaga [2016]eKLR that:-
“A mere denial is not a sufficient defence and a defendant has to show either by affidavit, or oral evidence or otherwise that there is a good defence.”
22. There is nothing to controvert the statement of claim. It is my view that the learned magistrate properly exercised his discretion in finding the respondent’s case proved on the basis of the available documents. I cannot, therefore, fault him for that.
23. The upshot of the foregoing is that I am satisfied that the appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed. The respondent shall have the costs of the appeal.
24. I order and direct that the money deposited in court be released to the respondent forthwith.
25. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 3rd day of July 2026.
“ In Thorn v Holdsworth (1876)3 Ch.637 at 640, which was quoted with approval in Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited [1996]
eKLR, the court held:-
“When a party in any pleading denied an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it be alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum, or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And so, when a matter of fact is alleged with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it as alleged along those circumstances, but fair and substantial answer must be given.”
2. We must examine the pleadings to understand the matter before the court below and to determine whether the learned adjudicator was correct in his finding.
3. In the statement of claim dated 3rd September 2024, Careenas Holdings Ltd claimed that it provided car hire and tour services for a total sum of Kes 89,076/95 to the appellant on diverse dates between June 2022 and 28the December 2022. Out of the invoiced amount, the appellant paid Kes 11,021, leaving a balance of Kes 89,076/95. In support of its case, it attached invoices and a self-generated ledger that identified the invoice numbers and the amounts claimed.
4. In its response, the appellant, as the respondent in the court below, denied that it owed the claimant (now respondent) any money. The statement of response was dated 16th December 2024. This was supported by the written statement of Mr Hanif Samji dated 16th December 2024. He was categorical that:
“I specifically deny the allegations made in the statement of claim that the Respondent failed to pay for services rendered. I confirm that the Respondent indeed utilized car hire services from the claimant in 2022 but fully discharged its payment obligations. The allegations suggesting an outstanding sum of Kes 89,076/96 are baseless.”
5. A statement attached to the response, however, showed that Kes 41,021/- was owed. The inadvertent admission was seized upon by the respondent in the reply to the statement of response dated 7th January 2025.
6. To prove that the money was owed, the respondent produced screenshots of invoices and WhatsApp messages and a certificate of electronic evidence.
7. Judgment on admission was entered for the sum of Kes 41,021. The court directed that the matter would proceed by way of documents only. It is thereafter that it delivered the impugned Judgment.
8. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision. Its Memorandum of Appeal is dated 28th February 2025. The same has 7 grounds, which I shall list below:
1. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the Respondent had sufficiently proved its claim for Kes 48,055.96 despite the glaring insufficiencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the evidence presented;
2. That the Honourable Court misdirected itself by basing its decision predominantly on invoices purportedly sent via WhatsApp and an extract from a delivery book, without subjecting the said documents to proper authentication as mandatorily required under the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya;
3. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to appreciate that the Respondent did not discharge the legal burden of proving an enforceable contractual debt against the Appellant, given the lack of a properly executed agreement or acknowledgement of liability;
4. That the Honourable Court unjustifiably disregarded the Appellant's well-articulated defence and statement of accounts, which demonstrated that all payments due to the Respondent had been settled in full and that the additional sum claimed was unsubstantiated, thereby occasioning grave prejudice to the Appellant;
5. That the Honourable Trial Magistrate erred in law by improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, contrary to the settled principles under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, thereby wrongfully requiring the Appellant to disprove a claim that was inadequately substantiated by the Respondent.
6. That the Honourable Court erred in law and in fact by failing to scrutinize the Respondent's invoices, some of which were issued after the period of engagement between, the parties had lapsed, thus rendering them unreliable as evidence of an existing debt.
7. That the Honourable Court's decision was against the weight of the evidence presented, leading to a manifest miscarriage of justice by granting an award that was not justifiable in law or fact.
9. The appellant seeks to have the appeal allowed in its entirety, for the judgment of the Small Claims Court to be set aside, for the respondent’s claim in the Small Claims Court to be dismissed with costs, and for it to be awarded costs of this court and of the court below.
10. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. I shall set out a summary of each party’s submissions below.
11. The submissions of the appellant are dated 24th September 2025. It was urged that the court was wrong to rely on improperly authenticated and self-serving documents, for failing to hold the respondent to the ordinary standards of proof for commercial indebtedness and for impermissibly shifting the evidential burden of proof to the appellant.
12. The appellant contended that documentary proof of indebtedness must be admissible and authentically proved. It denied that the evidence presented was credible. The appellant relied on the case of Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd v Cannon Assurance (Kenya) Ltd [2019]eKLR for the proposition that mere production of invoices without proof of delivery and acknowledgement cannot establish indebtedness.
13. The appellant contended that the court below shifted the burden of proof and improperly relied on negative inference under section 119 of the Evidence Act.
14. On its part, the Respondent, in submissions dated 23rd September 2025, urged that the appeal be dismissed. It stated that in its response to the statement of claim, the appellant conceded that it was in a business relationship. It urged that it produced contemporaneous records in the form of detailed invoices, that the invoices were delivered in both electronic and physical form from February to June 2023, and that they were supported by screenshots and a certificate under section 106B of the Evidence Act, sworn by Imtiaz Pradhan on 7th January 2025. It contended that none of the invoices were matched to payment.
15. The Respondent relied on the case of Mburu v Kiambi & Another [2025] KEHC 5108 (KLR) and also Benson Kangara T/a Pinkstone Enterprises v Nairobi City County [2019]eKLR.
16. I have considered the record of appeal, the submissions of the parties and the law. I note that under section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act, I may only consider matters of law. I am in agreement with the counsel for the appellant that questions regarding proper exercise of discretion by the learned adjudicator are an issue of law which this court can hear and determine.
17. Having established that the appeal is proper, I will proceed to consider whether the learned magistrate properly evaluated the evidence. Did he exercise his discretion lawfully, or was it whimsical or capricious?
18. In the case of Mbogo & another v Shah [1968] EA 93, the Court held that:-
“That this court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has acted on matters on which it should not have acted, or because it has failed to take into consideration matters it should have taken into consideration, and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion.”
19. Save for its own self-generated statement of account and witness statement, the appellant did not tender any other evidence in the court below to controvert what the respondent produced.
20. Although the appellant contended that the documents were not contemporaneous, I am of the view that the respondent’s evidence was remarkably consistent and was backed by the certificate of electronic evidence.
21. I have perused the record of the court below. It is true that the appellant's response was a bare denial. I agree with the dictum in Margaret Njeri Mbugua v Kirk Mweya Nyaga [2016]eKLR that:-
“A mere denial is not a sufficient defence and a defendant has to show either by affidavit, or oral evidence or otherwise that there is a good defence.”
22. There is nothing to controvert the statement of claim. It is my view that the learned magistrate properly exercised his discretion in finding the respondent’s case proved on the basis of the available documents. I cannot, therefore, fault him for that.
23. The upshot of the foregoing is that I am satisfied that the appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed. The respondent shall have the costs of the appeal.
24. I order and direct that the money deposited in court be released to the respondent forthwith.
25. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 3rd day of July 2026.