Nakuru Magistrate’s court denies June rent support request over gaps in payment and financial proof

The Magistrate’s court in Nakuru denied Irene Wanjiku’s request for an interim order requiring Caleb Otieno to contribute KES 12,000 toward June rent. It found that she had not proved the outstanding June balance, her financial need or Caleb’s ability to pay.

The dispute concerned whether KES 4,000 Caleb had already sent directly to the landlord should reduce the requested contribution to KES 8,000. Although the court accepted that the payment occurred, it did not determine which month it covered. No payment order was made in favour of either party.

The decisive distinction was between proving that money reached the landlord and proving which rent obligation it discharged. The M-PESA confirmation established a KES 4,000 transfer on 2 June, but contained no rent-month description. Repeated presentations of that confirmation did not amount to independent evidence.

Irene repeatedly referred to a landlord’s message identifying the payment as a June contribution and stating that KES 8,000 remained due. The judgment found, however, that neither the message itself nor its source was in the hearing record. Her account remained a submission rather than a produced written record.

Caleb’s acknowledgment that he had no separate record showing another month did not prove Irene’s account or relieve her of the obligation to establish the balance. Equally, the transfer alone did not justify a finding that Caleb deserved a credit specifically against June rent.

The support request also lacked specific financial evidence. The court had no established figures for Irene’s income, expenses or rent obligation, or for Caleb’s capacity to contribute. Her statement that she owned a small shop did not establish its earnings. Without evidence of both need and ability, the court found no basis for interim support.

Irene sought a June rent contribution and relied on her account of the landlord’s message. Her side maintained that the request was supported by the rent-help arrangement and the reported outstanding balance.

Caleb did not ask the court to treat June rent as fully paid. He sought a narrower order for KES 8,000, arguing that another KES 12,000 would fail to account for the money already transferred. He nevertheless accepted that his payment confirmation did not identify the relevant month.

Irene also raised allegations of past violence and infidelity. The court made no findings on those unsupported allegations, explaining that they did not establish the rent balance or either party’s financial circumstances. No criminal relief was before it.

The dispute followed the couple’s separation, after which Irene remained in the rented Nakuru home. The case background described an arrangement for Caleb to help with rent, but the judgment found that no evidence of that agreement had been presented.

The denial resolved only the request on the evidence before the court. It did not establish that Caleb owed nothing under any possible arrangement, or that his KES 4,000 transfer necessarily paid June rent. The payment’s application remains unresolved.