1.The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant that in the year 2014, the defendant applied for a loan of 13,800,000/= with security of Kwale/ Vanga/23, with a forced sale value of 13,800,000/=
2.The plaintiff agreed to give an accommodation of 15,800,000/= which was accepted on February 9, 2015. The plaintiff, was to pay 60 months’ equal instalments of Kshs 401,446.
3.The security was the land and motor vehicle registration No KBT 268L. The plaintiff applied for another loan secured by LR Kwale/Shimini/ADS/590 with forced value of Kshs 20,000,000/=. The plaintiff was given financial accommodation 11,200,000, on June 15, 2015. The payment was Kshs 285,906/= per month with 60 instalments.
4.In August 2017 the defendant applied for a third loan for security for LR Kwale/Shimoni Adj/671 with forced valuation of 15,000,000/=.
5.The same was accepted at Kshs 8,250,000/=. The letter of offer was accepted on August 17, 2018. Payment was Kshs 223,772 over security of LR Kwale/Shimoni/671 for Kshs 8,250,000/=.
6.In 2016, there was a consolidation for Kshs 36,360,379.07 on August 8, 2016. It was accepted. The plaintiff stated that there was breach of contract. A demand was made for arrears of Kshs 661,597.29. A sum of 2,038,542.43 and credit card arrears of 434,440/=.
7.A 40-day notice was issued for Kshs 37,732,000.35. The defendant on November 13, 2017 committed to clear in vain.
8.The plaintiff’s claim is for Kshs 48,795,347.44 with interest at 13%. The plaintiff prayed for Kshs 48,795,347.44. The plaintiff’s witness Simon Kamau Mwangi wrote a statement dated July 8, 2020. He reiterated the statement, following the averments in the plaint. He stated Kshs 48,795,347.44 as at June 30, 2020 plus interest at 13%. He produced the letters of offer and account.
9.A sum of Kshs 48,785,674.31 was claimed. The defendant file defence on November 30, 2020. They state that the interest is inflated unreasonable and illegal interest and extra hidden charges. The defence does not answer the questions. In the case of the case of Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited  eKLR, where the Court of Appeal stated as doth: -
10.The defendant does not answer the questions of payment. Under order 2 rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: -
11.The defendant did not tender any evidence. At the time of defence hearing the defendant stated that they had a preliminary objection.
12.I directed that the same be heard in the main suit. It was a gimmick to adjourn the hearing of the case.
13.Upon declining adjournment, they stated they had no witness without evidence the defence remains bare. It is not evidence. In Leo Investment Limited v Mau West Limited & another  eKLR, Justice C Kariuki stated as doth: -51.The appellant chose not to call any witness despite it having filed a defence. In Shaneebal Limited vs County Government of Machakos  eKLR, Odunga J while quoting with approval various court decisions held as follows (in relation to failure to tender evidence in support of averments in a defence:52.But what is the effect of failure by the appellant to tender evidence in rebuttal? The court in Shaneebal Limited v County Government of Machakos  eKLR (supra) addressed this issue in paragraphs 24 to 29 and while citing other case laws it held that where no defence is filed but no witness is called to give evidence in support of the defence, it means that the defence renders the plaintiff’s case unchallenged.53.That where a party fails to call evidence in support of its case, that party’s pleadings remain mere statements of fact since in so doing the party fails to substantiate its pleadings. In the same vein the failure to adduce any evidence means that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff against them is uncontroverted and therefore unchallenged.
14.The issue of time bar does not arise for 2 reason. The suit was filed on July 10, 2020. The issue of limitations of action is not raised in the defence.
15.This is an issue which can take the other party by surprise. Under order 2 rule 4 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, it must be specifically pleaded. Secondly the claim relates to a continuum of offers. The last acknowledgment of prior indebted and restructure through consolidation was on August 8, 2016. It is barely 4 years since the debt was incurred.:4. Matters which must be specifically pleaded(1)A party shall in any pleading subsequent to a plaint plead specifically any matter, for example performance, release, payment, fraud, inevitable accident, act of God, any relevant Statute of limitation or any fact showing illegality—a.which he alleges makes any claim or defence of the opposite party not maintainable;b.which, if not specifically pleaded, might take the opposite party by surprise; orc.which raises issues of fact not arising out of the preceding pleading.(2)Without prejudice to subrule (1), a defendant to an action for the recovery of land shall plead specifically every ground of defence on which he relies, and a plea that he is in possession of the land by himself or his tenant shall not be sufficient.
16.Default did not occur till after August 8, 2016. The claim is therefore not time barred. Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act provides as doth: -4.Actions of contract and tort and certain other actions(1)The following actions may not be brought after the end of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued—(a)actions founded on contract;(b)actions to enforce a recognizance;(c)actions to enforce an award;(d)actions to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of a written law, other than a penalty or forfeiture or sum by way of penalty or forfeiture;(e)actions, including actions claiming equitable relief, for which no other period of limitation is provided by this Act or by any other written law.
17.Having found that the claim is time bared it is my humble duty to interrogate the claim for 48,795,347 as at June 30, 2020. This was said to be money due and owing The letters of offer are accepted by the defendant. The defendant has not shown that he has paid. The bank statement shows indebtedness of Kshs 48,795,347.44.
19.The burden of proof in this cases is on whoever seeks the court to believe them. In this case it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show indebtedness. This is in consonance with sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act.
20.The same were not shown.
22.The evidence available show that a sum of Kshs 48,795,347.44 is due and owing.
23.Consequently, I enter judgment for the plaintiff;a.For a sum of Kshs 48,795,347.44 together with interest at court rates from the date of filing till payment in full.b.The plaintiff shall have costs of the suit of Kshs 1,045,000.c.There be 30 days stay of execution.d.The file is closed.