JUDGEMENT
(Being an appeal arising from the Ruling and Order of Honourable O. J. Muthoni, Adjudicator, delivered on 23rd June 2023 in Thika Small Claims Court, SCC No. E355 of 2023, in the matter of Felix Mwanga v Simon Gachuru Njoroge)
1. The genesis of this Appeal is a Preliminary Objection dated 02nd May, 2023 successfully raised by the Respondent in this Appeal. The Preliminary Objection was on jurisdiction and was raised before the Small Claims Court.
2. This judgment pertains to the Memorandum Appeal dated 17th July 2023, filed by the Appellant, arising from the Ruling and Order of Honourable O. J. Muthoni, Adjudicator, delivered on 23rd June 2023 in Thika Small Claims Court, SCC No. E355 of 2023, in the matter of Felix Mwanga v Simon Gachuru Njoroge. In the said Appeal, the Appellant seeks the following orders:
a) THAT the appeal be allowed.
b) THAT the Ruling of the Honourable Court delivered on 23 June, 2023 be varied and/or set aside.
c) THAT the suit be reinstated.
d) THAT the Respondent does pay the costs of this Appeal and the costs in the lower Court.
e) THAT such further relief as may appear just to the Honourable Court.
3. The Appeal is premised on several grounds, including that the Honourable Learned Adjudicator erred in law by applying incorrect legal principles; by improperly delving into factual matters in a dispute that raised a pure point of law; and by failing to consider the provisions of Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act. The Appellant further contends that the Learned Adjudicator failed to consider the evidence and submissions presented, and erred in awarding costs of the suit to the Respondent.
Background Facts
4. The Appellant herein instituted a suit against the Respondent by way of a Statement of Claim dated 24th April 2024 before the Small Claims Court at Thika. The claim sought compensation for damage occasioned to the Appellant’s motor vehicle, registration number KBV 494Q. This arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on or about 26th April 2020 along Kikuyu Road. The total value of the claim was Kshs.257,723/=.
5. The Appellant was the Original Claimant while the Respondent was still the Respondent before the Small Claims Court.
6. In the Statement of Claim, the Appellant (then the Claimant) averred that on or about 26th April 2020, motor vehicle registration number KBV 494Q was lawfully and carefully being driven along Kikuyu Road. That the Respondent, or his authorized driver, agent, servant, and/or employee, negligently, recklessly, and carelessly drove, managed, and/or controlled motor vehicle registration number KBC 550R, causing it to collide with the Appellant’s vehicle. The collision allegedly resulted in extensive damage to the Appellant’s vehicle, leading to substantial repair costs and related losses.
7. The Appellant attributed vicarious liability to the Respondent for the negligent acts and omissions of his driver, servant, or agent. The particulars of negligence pleaded included: Driving without due care and attention to other road users; Driving at an excessive speed, thereby losing control and colliding with the Appellant’s vehicle; Failing to brake, swerve, or otherwise act to avoid the collision; Driving in a reckless manner and thereby causing the accident and consequent damage.
8. It was further pleaded that the accident was reported at Kabete Police Station and a police abstract was issued attributing fault to the Respondent’s vehicle. At the material time, the Appellant’s motor vehicle was insured by CIC General Insurance Limited, which, having indemnified the Appellant, instituted the claim under the doctrine of subrogation in the name of the Appellant. The extent of the damage was assessed by Karconsult Assessors, a report prepared, and repairs undertaken by Access Panel Craft. The sum claimed, Kshs.257,723/=, comprised costs incurred for repairs, assessment, re-inspection, tracing, and other related expenses—making the claim one of special damages.
9. The Respondent entered appearance on 2nd May 2023 and contemporaneously filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the same day.
10. The Appellant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 19th May 2023 in opposition to the Preliminary Objection. The Respondent subsequently filed written submissions dated 10th May 2023, while the Appellant’s submissions were filed on 22nd May 2023.
11. The Learned Adjudicator (Hon. O. J. Muthoni, Resident Magistrate) delivered a ruling on 23rd June 2023, dismissing the Appellant’s claim with costs. In her decision, the learned adjudicator held that
“I have perused the claimant’s statement of claim and noted that the cause of action arose on 26th April 2020 along Kikuyu road within Nairobi-County-and-reported-at Kabete police station. The claimant didnt file the matter in courts within Nairobi County but chose to file in Thika for reasons of carrying on business within Kiambu County. Although Section 32 of Small Claims Act provides exclusion of strict rules of procedure, I find that the claimant’s reason of carrying on business within Kiambu County not plausible. He did not provide any evidence in support of his allegations. Further, courts are now gone virtual and one can attend at the comfort of in to their premises. light of the above, I find respondent’s preliminary objection merited and proceed dismiss the claimant’s claim with costs.”
12. This Honourable Court directed that the Appeal be canvassed and determined by way of written submissions.
Appellant’s Submissions
13. The Appellant submitted that under Rule 29(1) of the Court's rules, the High Court is mandated, on a first appeal, to re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions. Citing the established legal principles in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696 and Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shabal & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Appellant argued that a valid preliminary objection must be based purely on a point of law and must not call for the Court to ascertain disputed facts. The Appellant maintained that the issue raised in the Respondent's preliminary objection—territorial jurisdiction—was not a pure point of law but one requiring factual analysis, specifically as to where the Appellant resides or carries on business. The Appellant contended that under Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act, 2016, a claim may properly be instituted where the claimant resides or carries on business. He affirmed through a sworn affidavit dated 19th May 2023 that he conducts business in Kikuyu, Kiambu County, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court at Thika.
14. It was argued that Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act provides an independent jurisdictional basis, distinct from Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the Small Claims Court at Thika was the competent forum. The Appellant emphasized that the Learned Adjudicator erred by relying on disputed facts to uphold the preliminary objection, thereby misapplying the law. Finally, the Appellant submitted that the Preliminary Objection was misconceived. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Ruling of 23rd June 2023, reinstate the suit before the Small Claims Court at Thika, and award costs to the Appellant both in this Appeal and at the Trial Court.
Respondent’s Submissions
15. The Respondent argued that the Trial Court properly considered and determined the Preliminary Objection on the basis of law, without delving into matters of evidence or testimony. It was emphasized that, as per the legal threshold set in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, Preliminary Objections are limited to pure points of law. Accordingly, the Learned Adjudicator did not err in confining herself to the issue of “territorial jurisdiction”. The Respondent further submitted that Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act, when read with Sections 11–17 of the Civil Procedure Act, supports the principle of territorial convenience and protects Defendants from being sued in inconvenient forums. The Respondent asserted that the section applies primarily to contracts, whereas the present matter—being a material damage claim—fell outside the scope of Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act and was therefore subject to the general territorial rules under the Civil Procedure Act.
16. It was pointed out that the accident occurred along Kikuyu Road and that the Respondent resides in Nairobi. The police abstract was issued by Kabete Police Station, and potential witnesses, including police officers, are based in Nairobi. This, according to the Respondent, supports the conclusion that Nairobi—not Thika—was the proper forum for filing the claim.
17. The Respondent cited the landmark case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR, reiterating that jurisdiction is foundational, and without it, a Court must down its tools. Reference was also made to Articles 48 and 50 of the Constitution, emphasizing that territorial jurisdiction promotes access to justice and due process.
18. On the issue of costs, the Respondent relied on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, submitting that costs follow the event and that the Learned Adjudicator exercised judicial discretion properly. The Respondent cited Republic v Rosemary Wairimu Munene Ex Parte Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-op Society Ltd, and Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya v Mutula Kilonzo & 2 others, supporting the principle that the prevailing party is entitled to costs unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
Issues For Determination
19. Upon careful consideration of the material placed before this Honourable Court, the Court finds that only one issue arises for determination, namely:
a) Whether the Trial Court applied the correct legal principles in allowing the Preliminary Objection.
Analysis
20. This Appeal originates from the Small Claims Court and constitutes the first and final appeal. Appeals to this Court from the Small Claims Court are governed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act, which provides as follows:
38. Appeals
(1) A person aggrieved by the decision or an order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law.
(2) An appeal from any decision or order referred to in subsection (1) shall be final
21. It is therefore well settled that appeals to this Court from the Small Claims Court lie on matters of law only, as expressly provided under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. The Court is there not bound to re-appraise the evidence, draw inferences of fact and draw its own conclusions. The Submissions by the Appellant on this aspect are there not supported by the law.
22. Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act states as follows;
15. Parties to proceedings before the Court
(1) A person has the right to lodge a claim before the Court only if—
(a) such a person ordinarily resides or carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) the subject matter of the claim is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) the contract to which the claim relates was either made or was intended to be performed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(e) the defendant to the claim resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), any person against whom notice of a claim has been served under section 25 shall be party to the proceedings of that claim.
23. This Court does agree with the Respondent’s assertion that the principle of territorial convenience shields Defendants from being sued in forums deemed inconvenient. The present matter, being a claim for material damage, falls within the purview of the Small Claims Court Act by virtue of Section 12 (c) which includes claims arising from motor vehicle accidents where property such as cars, are damaged due to reckless or negligent driving. Ideally claims arising out of actions that arose in Kisumu should not weave their way to the Small Claims Court at Mombasa.
24. Section 15 (1) (a) of the Act sets out the jurisdiction of the Court and provides as follows;
15. Parties to proceedings before the Court
(1) A person has the right to lodge a claim before the Court only if—
(a) such a person ordinarily resides or carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) the subject matter of the claim is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) the contract to which the claim relates was either made or was intended to be performed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(e) the defendant to the claim resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), any person against whom notice of a claim has been served under section 25 shall be party to the proceedings of that claim.
25. In Wachuri v 15 Minutes Logistics Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal E795 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 8929 (KLR) (Civ) (19 July 2024) (Judgment), the Court addressed the interpretation of Section 15(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act, observing as follows (underlined emphasis ours):
This Section provides for the right of a party to lodge a claim before the Small Claims Court. Section 15(1) (a) focuses on the claimant and states that he/she should ordinarily reside or be carrying out business within the jurisdiction of the court. The use of the phrase ‘ordinarily’ connotes that it should be as a matter of notoriety that indeed the claimant is to be found residing and or operating within the local limits of the court. Section 15(1) (b) is more outright as it connotes that where the subject matter is a property in-situ then, it is within the local limits of the court. Section 15(1) (c) caters for contractual matters and it focus on WHERE the contract was made or where it was intended to be performed. Section 15(1)(d) provides for cases where the cause of action arose within the local limits of the court. Suffices to say that Section 15(1) (a) to (d) are focused on the claimant and the subject matter. Once these are not appropriate considerations, then the section gives the alternative of (e) which refers to the defendant. That is, the only time you can go outside the realms of Section 15(1) (a) to (e) is when you are considering the residence of the defendant.
26. This Court is persuaded by the analysis of Section 15 by Rutto J. As per Section 15(1)(d) the Claimant is bound to consider and file a claim within the local limits of where the cause of action arose.
27. Rule 3 of the Small Claims Court Rules, leaves no doubt as to the above. That the Claimant must file his/her claim within the local limits of where the thing that cause the action arose (underlined emphasis ours).
3. How to file a claim
(1) To commence proceedings under the Act, a person shall
complete and file a Statement of Claim in form SCC-1 set out in the First Schedule hereto by presenting it at the court registry and on payment of the prescribed fee.
(2) The claimant shall file the Statement of Claim at the Court nearest to the place where —
(a) the transaction or event to which the claim relates took place; or
(b) the respondent ordinarily resides or carries on business.
28. The Court is not in doubt that this information was discernible and can be gleaned from the pleadings herein. The Court notes that it is pleaded that the accident occurred along the Kikuyu Road. It was reported at the Kabete Police Station. It is unclear and remains unexplained why the Claim was filed in Thika in breach of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules.
29. The Court is persuaded that the Preliminary Objection was well taken and properly sustained.
30. As to costs, the same lie at the discretion of this Court. The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.
Determination
31. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in its entirety as lacking in merits.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THIS 7th August. 2025
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Miss Ocholla holding brief for Mr. Ngigi for the Appellant.
Mr. Onkangi for the Respondent.
Susan Nzioka – Court Assistant
(Being an appeal arising from the Ruling and Order of Honourable O. J. Muthoni, Adjudicator, delivered on 23rd June 2023 in Thika Small Claims Court, SCC No. E355 of 2023, in the matter of Felix Mwanga v Simon Gachuru Njoroge)
1. The genesis of this Appeal is a Preliminary Objection dated 02nd May, 2023 successfully raised by the Respondent in this Appeal. The Preliminary Objection was on jurisdiction and was raised before the Small Claims Court.
2. This judgment pertains to the Memorandum Appeal dated 17th July 2023, filed by the Appellant, arising from the Ruling and Order of Honourable O. J. Muthoni, Adjudicator, delivered on 23rd June 2023 in Thika Small Claims Court, SCC No. E355 of 2023, in the matter of Felix Mwanga v Simon Gachuru Njoroge. In the said Appeal, the Appellant seeks the following orders:
a) THAT the appeal be allowed.
b) THAT the Ruling of the Honourable Court delivered on 23 June, 2023 be varied and/or set aside.
c) THAT the suit be reinstated.
d) THAT the Respondent does pay the costs of this Appeal and the costs in the lower Court.
e) THAT such further relief as may appear just to the Honourable Court.
3. The Appeal is premised on several grounds, including that the Honourable Learned Adjudicator erred in law by applying incorrect legal principles; by improperly delving into factual matters in a dispute that raised a pure point of law; and by failing to consider the provisions of Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act. The Appellant further contends that the Learned Adjudicator failed to consider the evidence and submissions presented, and erred in awarding costs of the suit to the Respondent.
Background Facts
4. The Appellant herein instituted a suit against the Respondent by way of a Statement of Claim dated 24th April 2024 before the Small Claims Court at Thika. The claim sought compensation for damage occasioned to the Appellant’s motor vehicle, registration number KBV 494Q. This arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on or about 26th April 2020 along Kikuyu Road. The total value of the claim was Kshs.257,723/=.
5. The Appellant was the Original Claimant while the Respondent was still the Respondent before the Small Claims Court.
6. In the Statement of Claim, the Appellant (then the Claimant) averred that on or about 26th April 2020, motor vehicle registration number KBV 494Q was lawfully and carefully being driven along Kikuyu Road. That the Respondent, or his authorized driver, agent, servant, and/or employee, negligently, recklessly, and carelessly drove, managed, and/or controlled motor vehicle registration number KBC 550R, causing it to collide with the Appellant’s vehicle. The collision allegedly resulted in extensive damage to the Appellant’s vehicle, leading to substantial repair costs and related losses.
7. The Appellant attributed vicarious liability to the Respondent for the negligent acts and omissions of his driver, servant, or agent. The particulars of negligence pleaded included: Driving without due care and attention to other road users; Driving at an excessive speed, thereby losing control and colliding with the Appellant’s vehicle; Failing to brake, swerve, or otherwise act to avoid the collision; Driving in a reckless manner and thereby causing the accident and consequent damage.
8. It was further pleaded that the accident was reported at Kabete Police Station and a police abstract was issued attributing fault to the Respondent’s vehicle. At the material time, the Appellant’s motor vehicle was insured by CIC General Insurance Limited, which, having indemnified the Appellant, instituted the claim under the doctrine of subrogation in the name of the Appellant. The extent of the damage was assessed by Karconsult Assessors, a report prepared, and repairs undertaken by Access Panel Craft. The sum claimed, Kshs.257,723/=, comprised costs incurred for repairs, assessment, re-inspection, tracing, and other related expenses—making the claim one of special damages.
9. The Respondent entered appearance on 2nd May 2023 and contemporaneously filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the same day.
10. The Appellant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 19th May 2023 in opposition to the Preliminary Objection. The Respondent subsequently filed written submissions dated 10th May 2023, while the Appellant’s submissions were filed on 22nd May 2023.
11. The Learned Adjudicator (Hon. O. J. Muthoni, Resident Magistrate) delivered a ruling on 23rd June 2023, dismissing the Appellant’s claim with costs. In her decision, the learned adjudicator held that
“I have perused the claimant’s statement of claim and noted that the cause of action arose on 26th April 2020 along Kikuyu road within Nairobi-County-and-reported-at Kabete police station. The claimant didnt file the matter in courts within Nairobi County but chose to file in Thika for reasons of carrying on business within Kiambu County. Although Section 32 of Small Claims Act provides exclusion of strict rules of procedure, I find that the claimant’s reason of carrying on business within Kiambu County not plausible. He did not provide any evidence in support of his allegations. Further, courts are now gone virtual and one can attend at the comfort of in to their premises. light of the above, I find respondent’s preliminary objection merited and proceed dismiss the claimant’s claim with costs.”
12. This Honourable Court directed that the Appeal be canvassed and determined by way of written submissions.
Appellant’s Submissions
13. The Appellant submitted that under Rule 29(1) of the Court's rules, the High Court is mandated, on a first appeal, to re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions. Citing the established legal principles in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696 and Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shabal & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Appellant argued that a valid preliminary objection must be based purely on a point of law and must not call for the Court to ascertain disputed facts. The Appellant maintained that the issue raised in the Respondent's preliminary objection—territorial jurisdiction—was not a pure point of law but one requiring factual analysis, specifically as to where the Appellant resides or carries on business. The Appellant contended that under Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act, 2016, a claim may properly be instituted where the claimant resides or carries on business. He affirmed through a sworn affidavit dated 19th May 2023 that he conducts business in Kikuyu, Kiambu County, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court at Thika.
14. It was argued that Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act provides an independent jurisdictional basis, distinct from Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the Small Claims Court at Thika was the competent forum. The Appellant emphasized that the Learned Adjudicator erred by relying on disputed facts to uphold the preliminary objection, thereby misapplying the law. Finally, the Appellant submitted that the Preliminary Objection was misconceived. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Ruling of 23rd June 2023, reinstate the suit before the Small Claims Court at Thika, and award costs to the Appellant both in this Appeal and at the Trial Court.
Respondent’s Submissions
15. The Respondent argued that the Trial Court properly considered and determined the Preliminary Objection on the basis of law, without delving into matters of evidence or testimony. It was emphasized that, as per the legal threshold set in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, Preliminary Objections are limited to pure points of law. Accordingly, the Learned Adjudicator did not err in confining herself to the issue of “territorial jurisdiction”. The Respondent further submitted that Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act, when read with Sections 11–17 of the Civil Procedure Act, supports the principle of territorial convenience and protects Defendants from being sued in inconvenient forums. The Respondent asserted that the section applies primarily to contracts, whereas the present matter—being a material damage claim—fell outside the scope of Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act and was therefore subject to the general territorial rules under the Civil Procedure Act.
16. It was pointed out that the accident occurred along Kikuyu Road and that the Respondent resides in Nairobi. The police abstract was issued by Kabete Police Station, and potential witnesses, including police officers, are based in Nairobi. This, according to the Respondent, supports the conclusion that Nairobi—not Thika—was the proper forum for filing the claim.
17. The Respondent cited the landmark case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR, reiterating that jurisdiction is foundational, and without it, a Court must down its tools. Reference was also made to Articles 48 and 50 of the Constitution, emphasizing that territorial jurisdiction promotes access to justice and due process.
18. On the issue of costs, the Respondent relied on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, submitting that costs follow the event and that the Learned Adjudicator exercised judicial discretion properly. The Respondent cited Republic v Rosemary Wairimu Munene Ex Parte Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-op Society Ltd, and Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya v Mutula Kilonzo & 2 others, supporting the principle that the prevailing party is entitled to costs unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
Issues For Determination
19. Upon careful consideration of the material placed before this Honourable Court, the Court finds that only one issue arises for determination, namely:
a) Whether the Trial Court applied the correct legal principles in allowing the Preliminary Objection.
Analysis
20. This Appeal originates from the Small Claims Court and constitutes the first and final appeal. Appeals to this Court from the Small Claims Court are governed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act, which provides as follows:
38. Appeals
(1) A person aggrieved by the decision or an order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law.
(2) An appeal from any decision or order referred to in subsection (1) shall be final
21. It is therefore well settled that appeals to this Court from the Small Claims Court lie on matters of law only, as expressly provided under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. The Court is there not bound to re-appraise the evidence, draw inferences of fact and draw its own conclusions. The Submissions by the Appellant on this aspect are there not supported by the law.
22. Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act states as follows;
15. Parties to proceedings before the Court
(1) A person has the right to lodge a claim before the Court only if—
(a) such a person ordinarily resides or carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) the subject matter of the claim is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) the contract to which the claim relates was either made or was intended to be performed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(e) the defendant to the claim resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), any person against whom notice of a claim has been served under section 25 shall be party to the proceedings of that claim.
23. This Court does agree with the Respondent’s assertion that the principle of territorial convenience shields Defendants from being sued in forums deemed inconvenient. The present matter, being a claim for material damage, falls within the purview of the Small Claims Court Act by virtue of Section 12 (c) which includes claims arising from motor vehicle accidents where property such as cars, are damaged due to reckless or negligent driving. Ideally claims arising out of actions that arose in Kisumu should not weave their way to the Small Claims Court at Mombasa.
24. Section 15 (1) (a) of the Act sets out the jurisdiction of the Court and provides as follows;
15. Parties to proceedings before the Court
(1) A person has the right to lodge a claim before the Court only if—
(a) such a person ordinarily resides or carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) the subject matter of the claim is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) the contract to which the claim relates was either made or was intended to be performed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(e) the defendant to the claim resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), any person against whom notice of a claim has been served under section 25 shall be party to the proceedings of that claim.
25. In Wachuri v 15 Minutes Logistics Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal E795 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 8929 (KLR) (Civ) (19 July 2024) (Judgment), the Court addressed the interpretation of Section 15(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act, observing as follows (underlined emphasis ours):
This Section provides for the right of a party to lodge a claim before the Small Claims Court. Section 15(1) (a) focuses on the claimant and states that he/she should ordinarily reside or be carrying out business within the jurisdiction of the court. The use of the phrase ‘ordinarily’ connotes that it should be as a matter of notoriety that indeed the claimant is to be found residing and or operating within the local limits of the court. Section 15(1) (b) is more outright as it connotes that where the subject matter is a property in-situ then, it is within the local limits of the court. Section 15(1) (c) caters for contractual matters and it focus on WHERE the contract was made or where it was intended to be performed. Section 15(1)(d) provides for cases where the cause of action arose within the local limits of the court. Suffices to say that Section 15(1) (a) to (d) are focused on the claimant and the subject matter. Once these are not appropriate considerations, then the section gives the alternative of (e) which refers to the defendant. That is, the only time you can go outside the realms of Section 15(1) (a) to (e) is when you are considering the residence of the defendant.
26. This Court is persuaded by the analysis of Section 15 by Rutto J. As per Section 15(1)(d) the Claimant is bound to consider and file a claim within the local limits of where the cause of action arose.
27. Rule 3 of the Small Claims Court Rules, leaves no doubt as to the above. That the Claimant must file his/her claim within the local limits of where the thing that cause the action arose (underlined emphasis ours).
3. How to file a claim
(1) To commence proceedings under the Act, a person shall
complete and file a Statement of Claim in form SCC-1 set out in the First Schedule hereto by presenting it at the court registry and on payment of the prescribed fee.
(2) The claimant shall file the Statement of Claim at the Court nearest to the place where —
(a) the transaction or event to which the claim relates took place; or
(b) the respondent ordinarily resides or carries on business.
28. The Court is not in doubt that this information was discernible and can be gleaned from the pleadings herein. The Court notes that it is pleaded that the accident occurred along the Kikuyu Road. It was reported at the Kabete Police Station. It is unclear and remains unexplained why the Claim was filed in Thika in breach of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules.
29. The Court is persuaded that the Preliminary Objection was well taken and properly sustained.
30. As to costs, the same lie at the discretion of this Court. The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.
Determination
31. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in its entirety as lacking in merits.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THIS 7th August. 2025
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Miss Ocholla holding brief for Mr. Ngigi for the Appellant.
Mr. Onkangi for the Respondent.
Susan Nzioka – Court Assistant