Court orders Mwingi political aspirant Jonathan Ngenga to pay couple Sh1m after failed business deal

Audio By Vocalize

A Mwingi political aspirant has suffered a major blow after a Nairobi court ordered him to refund Sh1 million to a couple over a failed commercial arrangement, marking a sharp setback to his political and business reputation.

The Milimani Small Claims Court ruled that Jonathan Ndisya, who is identified in political circles as Jonathan Ngenga, must repay the money after finding that he had failed to prove claims that the funds were part of a profit-sharing business venture.

Delivering judgment in the case, Magistrate Sheilla Oriwo found that the dispute centred on a financing arrangement rather than a partnership as alleged by the respondent.

“The Claimants instituted this claim seeking the refund of Sh1,120,000, being monies advanced to the Respondent (Ndisya),” the court noted, adding that the funds were linked to alleged supply tenders involving foodstuffs and equipment.

The court heard that Nelly Nyambura and Mugo Nyaga advanced the money in several instalments, including cash payments and M-Pesa transfers, to support what was described as a supply deal targeting a government office.

Ndisya, however, insisted the arrangement was a joint venture dependent on payment from a government client.

He told the court that repayment could only occur after funds were received from the Office of the Deputy President, arguing that no obligation to refund had arisen.

But the court rejected his explanation, finding that no evidence was produced to support the existence of a valid tender or delivery of goods.

It noted that the defence was based on unverified claims.

“The Court is therefore left with bare assertions unsupported by documentary evidence,” the judgment stated.

On jurisdiction, the court dismissed arguments that the matter should be treated as a partnership dispute under the Partnership Act, affirming that it fell within its mandate as a debt recovery claim.

“The jurisdictional objection is accordingly dismissed,” the magistrate ruled.

The court further found that WhatsApp messages, M-Pesa records, and electronic evidence presented by the claimants strongly supported their version of events, showing that the respondent had acknowledged receipt and control of the funds.

In its analysis, the court concluded that the claimants had proved their case on a balance of probabilities and that the respondent failed to justify why the money should not be refunded.

“It is more consistent with a financing arrangement than a partnership relationship,” the court observed, referring to the conduct of the parties.

Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of the couple for Sh1 million, together with interest and costs assessed at Sh50,000.

The court also granted a 30-day stay of execution to allow for a possible appeal.