Background:
1. This Appeal emanates from the judgement of the Small Claim Court dated 25th July 2025. Allowing the claim and awarding the 1st Respondent Khs.924,046/= cost of 95,000/= to be born jointly and severally as between the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and Interest between Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
2. The Appellant herein aggrieved by the decision preferred an appeal to this Court seeking to set aside the judgement of the small claims court, the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of appeal dated 11th August 2025.
The Submissions:
3. The Appellant vide their submissions dated 11th August 2025. The 1st Respondent filed theirs dated 13th April 2026.The 2nd to 4th Respondents did not participate in the appeal.
Analysis of the issue for determination.
4. From the above analysis, the memorandum of appeal raised nine (9) issues for determination which can condensed as follows:
(i) Whether the suit is time barred since it was determined beyond sixty days pursuant the Small Claim Act.
(ii) Whether there was breach of Contract between parties herein
(iii) Whether the learned Adjudicator’s findings were supported by evidence
Whether the suit is time barred since it was determined beyond sixty days pursuant to the Small Claim Act.
5. The issue on the sixty-day timelines I associate myself with the reasoning and findings of my Late Brother Justice Majanja in Lumumba v Rift Gas Limited [2023] KEHC 25998 (KLR) where he held as follows:
‘While the intention of Parliament in codifying the 60-day timeline in the Small Claims Court Act (SCCA) was to ensure timely disposal of all proceedings before the Small Claims Court (SCC), the 60-day timeline was not cast in stone and discretion of the court totally shut out’’
6. I therefore find that the Appeal before me will be determined on its merits.
Whether there was breach of Contract between parties herein
7. From the record of appeal, it was proved that the 1st Respondent (Claimant in the Trial Court) herein got information about the women in leadership training in the USA through a brochure and got in touch with the 3rd Respondent who was the coordinator of the event who confirmed that the event was to take place.
8. This necessitated the subsequent planning and payment thereafter. The same was supported by the communication which was produced as evidence before the Trial Court. The 2nd Respondent while testifying stated that the 1st Respondent was part of the group that was supposed to travel for the conference. She further acknowledged having received USD 50,000 from the Appellant herein. This sum included monies paid by the 1st Respondent to their agent, the Appellant herein. She also confirmed being the liaison person within the committee. There was an invitation letter to the 1st Respondent dated 6th April 2023 from the university.
9. The Appellant, who was the third Respondent in the Trial Court, was approached by the women in leadership decision making committee under the ministry of gender that they had been appointed to collect money for participants of the upcoming conference in the USA. It was their testimony that the reason for their appointment was because most the participants could not raise the amount required in a lumpsum so they were to collect and remit the amount wholesomely to the university. He acknowledged receiving USD 50,000 which included the 1st Respondent and 12 others contribution. He further acknowledged knowing the 2nd Respondent.
10. The 4th Respondent’s is co-director at Lindan Tours and Travels she testified that she was approached by the 2nd Respondent and her role was to book flights for people travelling to the USA. It was testimony that the 1st Respondent reached out to her and was issued with a ticket.
11. From the above analysis, there was a valid contract between the Appellant, 1st ,2nd and 3rd Respondents, as all the elements of an oral agreement were present. It was part of the Contract that the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents were to take care of all the travel plans to the conference at the USA and ensure that the 1st Respondent travels to the USA to attend the event as agreed. The 1st Respondent accepted the invitation and remitted the consideration. The Court of Appeal in the case of William Muthee Muthami v Bank Baroda (2014)Eklr the Court while discussing the validity of the contract held:
“In the law of contract, the aggrieved party to an agreement must, in addition, prove that there was offer, acceptance and consideration. It is only when those three elements are available that an innocent party can claim against the party in breach’’
12. As for the 4th Respondent I concur with the Learned Magistrate findings that their role was limited to booking of tickets having been contracted by the 3rd Respondent who was a representative of the women in leadership committee. Therefore, she was not liable as no evidence was adduced to a contractual relationship between her and the 1st Respondent.
Whether the learned Adjudicator’s findings were supported by evidence?
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Having said so, the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof which is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
16. From the record of appeal, charge sheets have been attached showing criminal charges appear to have been preferred against the Appellant and the 2nd to 4th Respondents, these are separate proceedings which have their own lifeline. This court will focus on the main issue that was litigated on before the Trial Court.
17. It is worth noting that in the brief explanation of the circumstances under which the claim arose, the 1st Respondent narrated that after making all the payments, M/s Hon. Julia Chege became evasive and was not able to explain why she could not attend the conference. The 1st Respondent herein then suspected that the whole thing was scam and she reported to Kiambu Police station. She further averred that she also met other victims who were conned in a similar fashion. From my understanding of the whole case and study of the claim at the Trial Court, the 1st Respondent’s prayers were that she wanted her money to be refunded. No prayers for claim of fraud were sought at the Trial Court so this Court will not dwell on that.
18. From the analysis of the evidence, it was not disputed that there was a women in leadership conference in USA. There is also proof of payment by 1st Respondent to the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent. The first amount of USD 4,500 was paid to the Appellant, a fact not disputed from the record. The 1st Respondent in the statement of claim stated that monies paid were Kshs. 924,046.00.
19. There is also evidence of communication between the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondent herein, there is a communication from the university referring to the 2nd Respondent as Assistant Conference Coordinator. She further testified and confirmed that the 1st Respondent did not attend the conference but the offer stands the next time the university offered.
20. The 2nd Respondent (Hon. Julia Nyokabi ), in her witness statement dated 19th February 2024 at the Trial Court gave a background of the trip and averred that she is aware the 1st Respondent herein did not travel due to the fact she submitted false information and forged documents. She stated that those were the reasons why the 1st Respondent could not travel.
21. The 3rd Respondent herein (Jane Wairimu Chege), she said she has not been arrested and charged for defrauding anyone. She asked the Trial Court to direct the DCI to undertake investigation of perjury on the 1st Respondent herein and forward the report to the ODPP. She denied receiving any money and prayed that the claim against her be dismissed.
22. From the analysis of the evidence and the pleadings shown above, I am satisfied that the 1st Respondent deserved the orders which the Trial Court issued. It is not disputed that she paid money on diverse dated in the hope that she would attend the said event. It’s not disputed that she did not attend the event despite the fact that she made payments to enable her attend the same.
23. I am satisfied that the Trial Court evaluated the evidence and law well and I will only vary the judgment on the calculations of the money paid. From this Court’s calculations the amount paid as per the breakdown as follows: Kshs.300,000 paid on 14th April 2023, Kshs.323,000 paid on 24th April 2023, Kshs.59,000 paid on 3rd June 2023, Kshs. 137,000 paid on 16th June 2023 and Kshs.40,000 paid on 19th June 2023, these payments amount Kshs.859,000/-. This Court is satisfied that the 1st Respondent indeed made the above payments, she has gone to great length to prove that and the Appellant and the Respondents at the Trial Court have not denied this instead they opted to give explanations as to the process of the travel and the planning involved.
24. At the Trial Court the 1st Respondent further sought kshs.50,000 for monies spent on buying suitcase, clothes and transport fees but this is declined since it was not proved to have been incurred. The Trial Court disallowed this prayer as well on paragraph 89.
25. The Appeal partially succeeds, the amount awarded to the 1st Respondent is a varied from Kshs.924,046/= to Kshs. 859,000/=. The Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents are held jointly and severally.
26. 1st Respondent is awarded costs of this suit.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 3rd day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
Mbaya Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
No appearance l for the Respondent.
Michael - Court Assistant.
1. This Appeal emanates from the judgement of the Small Claim Court dated 25th July 2025. Allowing the claim and awarding the 1st Respondent Khs.924,046/= cost of 95,000/= to be born jointly and severally as between the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and Interest between Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
2. The Appellant herein aggrieved by the decision preferred an appeal to this Court seeking to set aside the judgement of the small claims court, the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of appeal dated 11th August 2025.
The Submissions:
3. The Appellant vide their submissions dated 11th August 2025. The 1st Respondent filed theirs dated 13th April 2026.The 2nd to 4th Respondents did not participate in the appeal.
Analysis of the issue for determination.
4. From the above analysis, the memorandum of appeal raised nine (9) issues for determination which can condensed as follows:
(i) Whether the suit is time barred since it was determined beyond sixty days pursuant the Small Claim Act.
(ii) Whether there was breach of Contract between parties herein
(iii) Whether the learned Adjudicator’s findings were supported by evidence
Whether the suit is time barred since it was determined beyond sixty days pursuant to the Small Claim Act.
5. The issue on the sixty-day timelines I associate myself with the reasoning and findings of my Late Brother Justice Majanja in Lumumba v Rift Gas Limited [2023] KEHC 25998 (KLR) where he held as follows:
‘While the intention of Parliament in codifying the 60-day timeline in the Small Claims Court Act (SCCA) was to ensure timely disposal of all proceedings before the Small Claims Court (SCC), the 60-day timeline was not cast in stone and discretion of the court totally shut out’’
6. I therefore find that the Appeal before me will be determined on its merits.
Whether there was breach of Contract between parties herein
7. From the record of appeal, it was proved that the 1st Respondent (Claimant in the Trial Court) herein got information about the women in leadership training in the USA through a brochure and got in touch with the 3rd Respondent who was the coordinator of the event who confirmed that the event was to take place.
8. This necessitated the subsequent planning and payment thereafter. The same was supported by the communication which was produced as evidence before the Trial Court. The 2nd Respondent while testifying stated that the 1st Respondent was part of the group that was supposed to travel for the conference. She further acknowledged having received USD 50,000 from the Appellant herein. This sum included monies paid by the 1st Respondent to their agent, the Appellant herein. She also confirmed being the liaison person within the committee. There was an invitation letter to the 1st Respondent dated 6th April 2023 from the university.
9. The Appellant, who was the third Respondent in the Trial Court, was approached by the women in leadership decision making committee under the ministry of gender that they had been appointed to collect money for participants of the upcoming conference in the USA. It was their testimony that the reason for their appointment was because most the participants could not raise the amount required in a lumpsum so they were to collect and remit the amount wholesomely to the university. He acknowledged receiving USD 50,000 which included the 1st Respondent and 12 others contribution. He further acknowledged knowing the 2nd Respondent.
10. The 4th Respondent’s is co-director at Lindan Tours and Travels she testified that she was approached by the 2nd Respondent and her role was to book flights for people travelling to the USA. It was testimony that the 1st Respondent reached out to her and was issued with a ticket.
11. From the above analysis, there was a valid contract between the Appellant, 1st ,2nd and 3rd Respondents, as all the elements of an oral agreement were present. It was part of the Contract that the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents were to take care of all the travel plans to the conference at the USA and ensure that the 1st Respondent travels to the USA to attend the event as agreed. The 1st Respondent accepted the invitation and remitted the consideration. The Court of Appeal in the case of William Muthee Muthami v Bank Baroda (2014)Eklr the Court while discussing the validity of the contract held:
“In the law of contract, the aggrieved party to an agreement must, in addition, prove that there was offer, acceptance and consideration. It is only when those three elements are available that an innocent party can claim against the party in breach’’
12. As for the 4th Respondent I concur with the Learned Magistrate findings that their role was limited to booking of tickets having been contracted by the 3rd Respondent who was a representative of the women in leadership committee. Therefore, she was not liable as no evidence was adduced to a contractual relationship between her and the 1st Respondent.
Whether the learned Adjudicator’s findings were supported by evidence?
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Having said so, the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof which is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
16. From the record of appeal, charge sheets have been attached showing criminal charges appear to have been preferred against the Appellant and the 2nd to 4th Respondents, these are separate proceedings which have their own lifeline. This court will focus on the main issue that was litigated on before the Trial Court.
17. It is worth noting that in the brief explanation of the circumstances under which the claim arose, the 1st Respondent narrated that after making all the payments, M/s Hon. Julia Chege became evasive and was not able to explain why she could not attend the conference. The 1st Respondent herein then suspected that the whole thing was scam and she reported to Kiambu Police station. She further averred that she also met other victims who were conned in a similar fashion. From my understanding of the whole case and study of the claim at the Trial Court, the 1st Respondent’s prayers were that she wanted her money to be refunded. No prayers for claim of fraud were sought at the Trial Court so this Court will not dwell on that.
18. From the analysis of the evidence, it was not disputed that there was a women in leadership conference in USA. There is also proof of payment by 1st Respondent to the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent. The first amount of USD 4,500 was paid to the Appellant, a fact not disputed from the record. The 1st Respondent in the statement of claim stated that monies paid were Kshs. 924,046.00.
19. There is also evidence of communication between the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondent herein, there is a communication from the university referring to the 2nd Respondent as Assistant Conference Coordinator. She further testified and confirmed that the 1st Respondent did not attend the conference but the offer stands the next time the university offered.
20. The 2nd Respondent (Hon. Julia Nyokabi ), in her witness statement dated 19th February 2024 at the Trial Court gave a background of the trip and averred that she is aware the 1st Respondent herein did not travel due to the fact she submitted false information and forged documents. She stated that those were the reasons why the 1st Respondent could not travel.
21. The 3rd Respondent herein (Jane Wairimu Chege), she said she has not been arrested and charged for defrauding anyone. She asked the Trial Court to direct the DCI to undertake investigation of perjury on the 1st Respondent herein and forward the report to the ODPP. She denied receiving any money and prayed that the claim against her be dismissed.
22. From the analysis of the evidence and the pleadings shown above, I am satisfied that the 1st Respondent deserved the orders which the Trial Court issued. It is not disputed that she paid money on diverse dated in the hope that she would attend the said event. It’s not disputed that she did not attend the event despite the fact that she made payments to enable her attend the same.
23. I am satisfied that the Trial Court evaluated the evidence and law well and I will only vary the judgment on the calculations of the money paid. From this Court’s calculations the amount paid as per the breakdown as follows: Kshs.300,000 paid on 14th April 2023, Kshs.323,000 paid on 24th April 2023, Kshs.59,000 paid on 3rd June 2023, Kshs. 137,000 paid on 16th June 2023 and Kshs.40,000 paid on 19th June 2023, these payments amount Kshs.859,000/-. This Court is satisfied that the 1st Respondent indeed made the above payments, she has gone to great length to prove that and the Appellant and the Respondents at the Trial Court have not denied this instead they opted to give explanations as to the process of the travel and the planning involved.
24. At the Trial Court the 1st Respondent further sought kshs.50,000 for monies spent on buying suitcase, clothes and transport fees but this is declined since it was not proved to have been incurred. The Trial Court disallowed this prayer as well on paragraph 89.
25. The Appeal partially succeeds, the amount awarded to the 1st Respondent is a varied from Kshs.924,046/= to Kshs. 859,000/=. The Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents are held jointly and severally.
26. 1st Respondent is awarded costs of this suit.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 3rd day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
Mbaya Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
No appearance l for the Respondent.
Michael - Court Assistant.