A court has ordered a man to refund his former lover Sh800,000 after finding that he received her money to buy her a car but instead claimed that he had wired the funds to her mother.

The Small Claims Court ordered Cavin Oguk to pay Benter Anyango Sh801,000, together with Sh66,400 in costs and interest, after rejecting his defence that the money had been transferred to Ms Anyango’s mother.

The dispute arose in August 2025 after their relationship ended. Ms Anyango told the court that Mr Oguk was her boyfriend when she asked him to purchase the vehicle, and that they have a son together.

Ms Anyango said she had taken a loan from I&M Bank and sent the money to Mr Oguk in four instalments in April 2024 to facilitate the purchase of a Toyota Mark X.

Ms Anyango said she had taken a loan and sent the money to Mr Oguk in four instalments in April 2024 to facilitate the purchase of a Toyota Mark X.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

Her bank records showed that she transferred Sh145,000 on April 6, followed by Sh85,000 and Sh99,000 on April 10, and Sh472,000 the following day.

The four transfers, totalling Sh801,000, were made from Ms Anyango’s I&M Bank account to Mr Oguk’s account at the same bank.

“The court is therefore satisfied that the claimant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she transferred Sh801,000/- to the respondent in April 2024,” the court said.

Ms Anyango’s case was complicated by the absence of a written agreement. She admitted in court that the arrangement was verbal and that she could not confirm the colour of the intended vehicle.

She also did not produce evidence of the loan, an invoice, importation documents, a motor vehicle search, communication with a dealer or any other contemporaneous document showing that the money was specifically earmarked for the purchase of a Toyota Mark X.

The court, however, said the absence of a written agreement was not fatal where an oral agreement could be established through credible evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

“The court must consider whether, on a balance of probabilities, the explanation advanced by the claimant as to the purpose of the payments is more probable than that advanced by the respondent,” the magistrate said.

Mr Oguk denied that the money was intended for the purchase of a vehicle. He claimed that the funds were subsequently channelled to Ms Anyango’s mother.

The court found the explanation insufficient, noting that Mr Oguk had not adequately explained why Ms Anyango would first send the money to his bank account.

Read: Survivor and rights defenders welcome Maslaha ban as Kenya moves to prosecute all GBV cases in court

He also failed to provide convincing evidence showing the purpose for which he had received the money.

“His assertion that he does not engage in the business of importing or selling motor vehicles does not, without more, disprove the claimant's evidence that he had undertaken to purchase the vehicle on her behalf. The burden rested upon the respondent to prove his case against the claimant,” the magistrate said.

Mr Oguk also failed to provide clear financial records showing how the money was used.

The bank statements he produced were unclear, and the court gave him two opportunities to replace them with legible copies. He failed to do so despite opportunities granted on June 29 and July 16, 2026.

“The court is unable to attach any meaningful evidential value to those documents,” the magistrate said of Mr Oguk’s bank statements.

The WhatsApp screenshots he produced also failed to establish that the disputed money had been advanced for another purpose or that he had completed the vehicle transaction.

The court accepted that Mr Oguk had received the money but found that he had failed to demonstrate that it was intended for another lawful purpose or that the transaction had been completed.

It consequently found that Ms Anyango had proved that she transferred the money to her former lover, while Mr Oguk failed to persuade the court that the funds had been used for another lawful purpose.

The court suspended execution of the judgment for 30 days.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

jwangui@ke.nationmedia.com