SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Women Microfinance Bank v Kering & another (Civil Appeal E007 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 3922 (KLR) (26 March 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEHC 3922 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3922
Citation
[2025] KEHC 3922 (KLR)
Decided
26 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the Eldoret Chief Magistrate's CourtCoramE. OMINDE
Holding

The Appellant's appeal is allowed with costs to be borne by the Respondents. The impugned judgment of the Trial Magistrate is erroneous in all its aspects and respects. The trial magistrate erred in entering judgment in favor of the respondents and awarding an amount of Ks. 622,522/= as overpayment.

Facts

The 2nd Respondents (Leah Jelagat and Joseph Kipchirchir Kering) held an Inuka Transactional Account with the Appellant (Kenya Women Microfinance Bank) and approached the Appellant for a loan facility. The Appellant approved Kshs. 630,000/- as the first instalment, but the balance of Kshs. 370,000/- was never credited to their account. The 2nd Respondents claimed the Appellant failed to provide them with the letter of offer and loan agreement, and that the loan amount was unknown to them.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court erred in determining the suit in favor of the Respondents
  2. Whether the trial court erred in its award of damages

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in its findings of fact and in awarding damages. The Court considered the evidence and concluded that the Appellant's appeal has merit.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment of the Trial Magistrate is set aside in its entirety
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case