A decisive ruling from the Small Claims Court in Voi has handed a major victory to Raisons Distributors Limited in a commercial dispute against My Dukani Investment Limited, after the court found that the respondent failed to challenge a substantial unpaid debt convincingly.
The case centred on a supply agreement in which Raisons Distributors provided goods to My Dukani Investment on credit, a common business arrangement in Kenya’s retail and distribution sector.
According to court documents, the respondent made only partial payments, leaving behind an outstanding balance that triggered legal action by the supplier.
The total amount claimed by Raisons Distributors stood at Kshs. 369,196, backed by invoices and a detailed statement of accounts presented before the court.
In its defence, My Dukani Investment did not deny the existence of the debt entirely but instead admitted liability for a reduced amount of Kshs. 189,672.
The respondent argued that this admitted figure arose from a bounced cheque issued in October 2025, which it acknowledged as unpaid.
Following this admission, the court had already entered judgment on February 2, 2026, for the admitted portion, effectively settling part of the dispute early in the proceedings.
However, the real legal battle remained over the disputed balance of Kshs. 179,524, which the respondent declined to acknowledge.
The court was therefore tasked with determining whether the claimant had sufficiently proven entitlement to this remaining amount.
In its analysis, the court noted a critical weakness in the respondent’s case: a lack of evidence.
While My Dukani Investment disputed the full claim, it failed to provide any documentation or detailed breakdown to show that the claimant’s figures were incorrect.
Notably, the respondent did not challenge the invoices or the statement of accounts submitted by Raisons Distributors, which formed the backbone of the claim.
This omission proved costly.
The court emphasized that merely disputing a claim is not enough in law; a party must back up its position with credible evidence.
Relying on Section 107 of the Evidence Act, the court reiterated the fundamental legal principle that “he who alleges must prove.”
In this context, once the claimant had produced invoices and account statements supporting the debt, the burden shifted to the respondent to demonstrate why those figures were inaccurate.
The court found that the respondent had completely failed to discharge this burden.
Instead of providing proof, the respondent simply asserted that a lower amount was due, without explaining discrepancies or offering alternative calculations.
On the other hand, Raisons Distributors presented a consistent and well-documented case, supported by transactional records that clearly outlined the amounts owed.
The court therefore concluded that the claimant had met the required standard of proof for the disputed balance.
As a result, the full claim—beyond the already admitted portion—was upheld.
This meant that My Dukani Investment was held liable for the entire outstanding balance claimed by the supplier.
On the issue of costs, the court ruled in favor of the claimant, noting that success in litigation typically entitles the winning party to recover legal costs.
The judgment reinforces a key lesson for businesses: partial admission of debt does not shield a party from liability for the remaining balance unless there is solid evidence to dispute it.
It also highlights the importance of proper record-keeping and documentation in commercial transactions, which can ultimately determine the outcome of disputes in court.
For suppliers, the ruling is a strong affirmation that courts will uphold claims supported by clear documentation, especially in credit-based transactions.
For debtors, it serves as a warning that unsupported denials will not stand in the face of verifiable financial records.
In the end, the case underscores a simple but powerful legal truth—claims are won not by argument alone, but by evidence.
