INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Before the court is a matter concerning a dispute between Gaamey Construction Company Limited (the Plaitiff/Applicant) and Baraka Credit Limited (the Defendant/Respondent) arising from a credit facility advanced to the Applicant.
2. The proceedings before the Court form part of consolidated proceedings, and the Court has considered the pleadings filed in the initial suit (HCCOMM/E758/2025) together with those filed in the subsequent proceedings for purposes of determining the present Application.
3. By a Notice of Motion dated 20 th November 2025, the Applicant seeks review and variation of the directions issued by this Court on 19 th November 2025, by which the suit in HCCOMM/E758/2025 was directed to be transferred to the Chief Magistrates’ Court for further allocation and the High Court file was marked as closed.
4. The Application is brought under, inter alia, Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant principally seeks an order reviewing and setting aside the directions of 19 th November 2025 and reinstating the suit before this Court. It further seeks a finding that the dispute exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates’ Court and that the High Court is therefore the proper forum for its hearing and determination, together with costs of the Application.
5. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Abdi Ibrahim, a director of the Applicant. The Applicant's case is that the transfer of the suit was premised on the understanding that the dispute fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. It contends, however, that the Respondent's demand against it stands at KES 24,570,000, which exceeds the statutory pecuniary limit of KES 20,000,000 applicable to a Chief Magistrate. The Applicant therefore apprehends that upon transfer; the Magistrates’ Court may decline jurisdiction on account of the value of the dispute.
6. The dispute itself arises from a credit facility which the Applicant states was advanced by the Respondent. From the pleadings in the initial suit, the Applicant's case is that although the facility was expressed at KES 6,000,000, only KES 3,727,400 was actually disbursed. The Applicant further pleads that it made payments totalling KES 4,938,000, but that notwithstanding those payments, the Respondent subsequently demanded KES 24,570,000.
7. The Applicant consequently instituted proceedings challenging, among other matters, the enforceability of the credit facility and the sums claimed by the Respondent. The reliefs sought in the suit include declarations concerning the validity and enforceability of the agreement, reimbursement of sums allegedly overpaid, injunctive relief against the Respondent's threatened enforcement over the secured motor vehicles, discharge of the securities, damages, interest and costs.
8. The present Application was precipitated by the Court's directions of 19 th November 2025 transferring the matter to the Chief Magistrates’ Court. The Applicant contends that the Court's decision ought to be reviewed because the value of the dispute, as reflected in the Respondent's demand of KES 24,570,000, exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the receiving court.
9. The Application is not opposed. The Respondent has not filed a Replying Affidavit, Grounds of Opposition or written submissions. The Court shall therefore determine the Application on the basis of the pleadings, the Applicant's affidavit evidence, the record and the Applicant's submissions.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
10. The Applicant submits that the order transferring the suit to the Chief Magistrates’ Court ought to be reviewed because the dispute exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It relies on Section 7(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, contending that a Chief Magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction is limited to KES 20,000,000, whereas the Respondent's demand stands at KES 24,570,000.
11. The Applicant relies, inter alia, on Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited v Thuranira [2025] KEHC 9189 (KLR) and Nyasimi v China Henan International Co-operation Group Co. Ltd , submitting that a court cannot entertain a matter whose subject matter falls outside its statutory pecuniary jurisdiction. It further relies on Joseph Madegwa v Gaylord Avedi [2018] KEELC 1292 (KLR) for the proposition that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by consent, acquiescence or conduct of the parties.
12. The Applicant therefore urges the Court to review the directions of 19 th November 2025, retain the matter before the High Court and allow the suit to proceed to hearing and determination.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
13. Having considered the Application, the affidavit evidence, the pleadings in the consolidated proceedings and the Applicant's submissions, I find that the sole issue for determination is:
Whether, having regard to the value of the dispute, the suit falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates’ Court.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. The starting point in determining the present Application is the question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is fundamental to the exercise of judicial authority and must be established before a Court proceeds to determine any substantive question before it. In Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 , the Court of Appeal famously stated in the dictum of Nyarangi, JA that
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.”
15. The Court further held that once a court forms the view that it lacks jurisdiction, it must down its tools. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the superior courts, including in Julius Ochieng Oloo & another v Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga [2019] KECA 343 (KLR) .
16. The importance of establishing jurisdiction at the outset is particularly pronounced in the present matter because the dispute concerns the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum to which the suit was transferred.
17. The question is therefore not merely whether the Applicant has demonstrated a different valuation of the dispute, but whether, upon considering the nature and subject matter of the proceedings, the Chief Magistrates’ Court is vested by statute with the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit.
18. Section 7(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act provides for the pecuniary jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts as follows: -
“A magistrate's court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed—
(a)twenty million shillings, where the court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
(b)fifteen million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
(c)ten million shillings, where the court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
(d)seven million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
(e)five million shillings, where the court is presided over by a resident magistrate.”
19. The contention that is before this Court, therefore, is what constitutes the value of the subject matter in the present proceedings.
20. I have considered the Plaint filed in HCCOMM/E758/2025. The Applicant's suit principally challenges the validity and enforceability of the credit facility and the sums demanded by the Respondent. The Applicant pleads that the Respondent has demanded KES 24,570,000, notwithstanding the Applicant's contention that only KES 3,727,400 was actually disbursed and that it has already paid KES 4,938,000.
21. The Applicant consequently seeks, among other reliefs, declarations that the loan agreement and Letter of Offer are unconscionable and unenforceable, a declaration that the principal has been fully repaid, and an injunction restraining the Respondent from enforcing the alleged indebtedness against the secured motor vehicles.
22. The perusal of the evidence provided by the Plaintiff/Applicant, brings to this court’s attention that the loan statement issued by the Defendant/Respondent claims an outstanding balance of KES 24,570,000 as at 8 th September, 2025, while an instruction letter to Auctioneers aims to recover KES 6,050,000 as at 2 nd July 2025.
23. It is also important to note that the Plaintiff/Applicant while having mentioned that the Defendant/Respondent is desirous of recovering KES 24,570,000 in its Plaint, no evidence has been shown of a demand reflecting this value. The Plaintiff/Applicant in its prayers only seeks a reimbursement of KES 1,210,600 being overpayment of sums beyond the principal.
24. Pecuniary jurisdiction, in Kenyan civil procedure is determined by the value of the subject matter in the suit. Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Act states: -
“Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits, if any, of its ordinary jurisdiction.”
25. This position has been reiterated by the courts in many cases including National Housing Corporation v Chief Magistrate Court, Mombasa & 2 Others [2012] KEHC 5499 (KLR) where the court pronounced itself thus:-
“Jurisdiction is pegged to the value of the subject matter in dispute and a distinction must be made between the subject matter in dispute and the reliefs sought by the parties.”
26. The foregoing position is instructive because the value of the subject matter is not necessarily synonymous with the monetary relief specifically sought by a party. The Court is required to examine the substance of the dispute and determine what constitutes the subject matter placed before it. In this regard, the pleadings are of primary importance, although where the value of the subject matter is disputed or cannot be ascertained from the pleadings, the Court may have regard to the evidence placed before it.
27. In John Mungai Murango & another v Jeremiah Kiarie Mukoma [2015] KECA 374 (KLR), the Court of Appeal similarly considered the question of pecuniary jurisdiction by reference to the pleadings and the evidence placed before the Court. The Court held that there must be material demonstrating that the value of the subject matter exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction, and cautioned that the court could not enter into the realm of speculation as to value. The Court stated:
“The High Court as the first appellate court examined whether or not the trial magistrate had jurisdiction. In doing so, the High Court, looked at the pleadings filed by the parties in the suit in the subordinate court and the evidence and came to the conclusion, rightly in our view, that there was no material before the trial magistrate to show that the value of the suit land was more than that reflected in the pleadings…”
28. Similarly, in Wanjala v Namwamba & another [2024] KEHC 15587 (KLR ), the High Court, while considering an objection based on the alleged value of the subject matter observed that an applicant could not merely speculate on the likely value of the claim without demonstrating the basis upon which the alleged excess of jurisdiction was founded.
29. Applying the foregoing principles, the Applicant principally relies on the KES 24,570,000 reflected in the loan statement as the value of the subject matter. However, the evidence does not demonstrate a consistent demand for that amount, nor is it reflected in the Applicant’s substantive monetary prayer.
30. In the circumstances, the Court cannot, without more, treat the figure in the loan statement as conclusive of the value of the subject matter for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction.
31. While the absence of a prayer for KES 24,570,000/= is not, by itself, determinative, the Court must, in accordance with National Housing Corporation v Chief Magistrate Court, Mombasa & 2 Others (supra), consider the substance of the dispute and the evidence establishing the value of its subject matter.
32. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the KES 24,570,000/= reflected in the loan statement represents the value of the subject matter, as opposed to the Respondent’s disputed computation of the alleged outstanding balance. The Applicant has therefore failed to establish that the subject matter exceeds the KES 20,000,000/= pecuniary limit under Section 7(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.
33. It is not expected, for instance, for pecuniary jurisdiction to operate as a yoyo where an amount in the neighbourhood of KES. 20,000,000/= will oscillate between the subordinate Court and the High Court due to appreciations of currency.
34. Now turning to the basis of review , the Application is brought principally under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Applicant was therefore required to demonstrate a recognised ground for review, namely, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
35. Having found that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the receiving court lacks the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, I find no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned directions warranting review.
36. Further, the Supreme Court in Parliamentary Service Commission v Martin Nyaga Wambora & 36 Others [2018] eKLR affirmed that
“an application for review of exercise of discretion is not an appeal or a chance for the applicant to re-argue his/her application.”
37. In the present case, the Applicant's contention essentially seeks to have the Court adopt KES 24,570,000/= as the value of the subject matter, a proposition which, as already found, is not established by the material before the Court. The threshold for review has therefore not been met.
DISPOSITION AND ORDERS
I. In the result, the Notice of Motion dated 20 th November 2025 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
II. The directions issued on 19 th November 2025 transferring HCCOMM/E758/2025 to the Chief Magistrates’ Court for further allocation and marking the High Court file as closed shall remain in force.
III. There shall be no order as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered on virtual platform in the presence of:
Kevin Babu - Court Assistant
1. Before the court is a matter concerning a dispute between Gaamey Construction Company Limited (the Plaitiff/Applicant) and Baraka Credit Limited (the Defendant/Respondent) arising from a credit facility advanced to the Applicant.
2. The proceedings before the Court form part of consolidated proceedings, and the Court has considered the pleadings filed in the initial suit (HCCOMM/E758/2025) together with those filed in the subsequent proceedings for purposes of determining the present Application.
3. By a Notice of Motion dated 20 th November 2025, the Applicant seeks review and variation of the directions issued by this Court on 19 th November 2025, by which the suit in HCCOMM/E758/2025 was directed to be transferred to the Chief Magistrates’ Court for further allocation and the High Court file was marked as closed.
4. The Application is brought under, inter alia, Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant principally seeks an order reviewing and setting aside the directions of 19 th November 2025 and reinstating the suit before this Court. It further seeks a finding that the dispute exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates’ Court and that the High Court is therefore the proper forum for its hearing and determination, together with costs of the Application.
5. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Abdi Ibrahim, a director of the Applicant. The Applicant's case is that the transfer of the suit was premised on the understanding that the dispute fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. It contends, however, that the Respondent's demand against it stands at KES 24,570,000, which exceeds the statutory pecuniary limit of KES 20,000,000 applicable to a Chief Magistrate. The Applicant therefore apprehends that upon transfer; the Magistrates’ Court may decline jurisdiction on account of the value of the dispute.
6. The dispute itself arises from a credit facility which the Applicant states was advanced by the Respondent. From the pleadings in the initial suit, the Applicant's case is that although the facility was expressed at KES 6,000,000, only KES 3,727,400 was actually disbursed. The Applicant further pleads that it made payments totalling KES 4,938,000, but that notwithstanding those payments, the Respondent subsequently demanded KES 24,570,000.
7. The Applicant consequently instituted proceedings challenging, among other matters, the enforceability of the credit facility and the sums claimed by the Respondent. The reliefs sought in the suit include declarations concerning the validity and enforceability of the agreement, reimbursement of sums allegedly overpaid, injunctive relief against the Respondent's threatened enforcement over the secured motor vehicles, discharge of the securities, damages, interest and costs.
8. The present Application was precipitated by the Court's directions of 19 th November 2025 transferring the matter to the Chief Magistrates’ Court. The Applicant contends that the Court's decision ought to be reviewed because the value of the dispute, as reflected in the Respondent's demand of KES 24,570,000, exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the receiving court.
9. The Application is not opposed. The Respondent has not filed a Replying Affidavit, Grounds of Opposition or written submissions. The Court shall therefore determine the Application on the basis of the pleadings, the Applicant's affidavit evidence, the record and the Applicant's submissions.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
10. The Applicant submits that the order transferring the suit to the Chief Magistrates’ Court ought to be reviewed because the dispute exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It relies on Section 7(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, contending that a Chief Magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction is limited to KES 20,000,000, whereas the Respondent's demand stands at KES 24,570,000.
11. The Applicant relies, inter alia, on Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited v Thuranira [2025] KEHC 9189 (KLR) and Nyasimi v China Henan International Co-operation Group Co. Ltd , submitting that a court cannot entertain a matter whose subject matter falls outside its statutory pecuniary jurisdiction. It further relies on Joseph Madegwa v Gaylord Avedi [2018] KEELC 1292 (KLR) for the proposition that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by consent, acquiescence or conduct of the parties.
12. The Applicant therefore urges the Court to review the directions of 19 th November 2025, retain the matter before the High Court and allow the suit to proceed to hearing and determination.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
13. Having considered the Application, the affidavit evidence, the pleadings in the consolidated proceedings and the Applicant's submissions, I find that the sole issue for determination is:
Whether, having regard to the value of the dispute, the suit falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates’ Court.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. The starting point in determining the present Application is the question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is fundamental to the exercise of judicial authority and must be established before a Court proceeds to determine any substantive question before it. In Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 , the Court of Appeal famously stated in the dictum of Nyarangi, JA that
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.”
15. The Court further held that once a court forms the view that it lacks jurisdiction, it must down its tools. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the superior courts, including in Julius Ochieng Oloo & another v Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga [2019] KECA 343 (KLR) .
16. The importance of establishing jurisdiction at the outset is particularly pronounced in the present matter because the dispute concerns the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum to which the suit was transferred.
17. The question is therefore not merely whether the Applicant has demonstrated a different valuation of the dispute, but whether, upon considering the nature and subject matter of the proceedings, the Chief Magistrates’ Court is vested by statute with the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit.
18. Section 7(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act provides for the pecuniary jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts as follows: -
“A magistrate's court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceed—
(a)twenty million shillings, where the court is presided over by a chief magistrate;
(b)fifteen million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior principal magistrate;
(c)ten million shillings, where the court is presided over by a principal magistrate;
(d)seven million shillings, where the court is presided over by a senior resident magistrate; or
(e)five million shillings, where the court is presided over by a resident magistrate.”
19. The contention that is before this Court, therefore, is what constitutes the value of the subject matter in the present proceedings.
20. I have considered the Plaint filed in HCCOMM/E758/2025. The Applicant's suit principally challenges the validity and enforceability of the credit facility and the sums demanded by the Respondent. The Applicant pleads that the Respondent has demanded KES 24,570,000, notwithstanding the Applicant's contention that only KES 3,727,400 was actually disbursed and that it has already paid KES 4,938,000.
21. The Applicant consequently seeks, among other reliefs, declarations that the loan agreement and Letter of Offer are unconscionable and unenforceable, a declaration that the principal has been fully repaid, and an injunction restraining the Respondent from enforcing the alleged indebtedness against the secured motor vehicles.
22. The perusal of the evidence provided by the Plaintiff/Applicant, brings to this court’s attention that the loan statement issued by the Defendant/Respondent claims an outstanding balance of KES 24,570,000 as at 8 th September, 2025, while an instruction letter to Auctioneers aims to recover KES 6,050,000 as at 2 nd July 2025.
23. It is also important to note that the Plaintiff/Applicant while having mentioned that the Defendant/Respondent is desirous of recovering KES 24,570,000 in its Plaint, no evidence has been shown of a demand reflecting this value. The Plaintiff/Applicant in its prayers only seeks a reimbursement of KES 1,210,600 being overpayment of sums beyond the principal.
24. Pecuniary jurisdiction, in Kenyan civil procedure is determined by the value of the subject matter in the suit. Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Act states: -
“Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits, if any, of its ordinary jurisdiction.”
25. This position has been reiterated by the courts in many cases including National Housing Corporation v Chief Magistrate Court, Mombasa & 2 Others [2012] KEHC 5499 (KLR) where the court pronounced itself thus:-
“Jurisdiction is pegged to the value of the subject matter in dispute and a distinction must be made between the subject matter in dispute and the reliefs sought by the parties.”
26. The foregoing position is instructive because the value of the subject matter is not necessarily synonymous with the monetary relief specifically sought by a party. The Court is required to examine the substance of the dispute and determine what constitutes the subject matter placed before it. In this regard, the pleadings are of primary importance, although where the value of the subject matter is disputed or cannot be ascertained from the pleadings, the Court may have regard to the evidence placed before it.
27. In John Mungai Murango & another v Jeremiah Kiarie Mukoma [2015] KECA 374 (KLR), the Court of Appeal similarly considered the question of pecuniary jurisdiction by reference to the pleadings and the evidence placed before the Court. The Court held that there must be material demonstrating that the value of the subject matter exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction, and cautioned that the court could not enter into the realm of speculation as to value. The Court stated:
“The High Court as the first appellate court examined whether or not the trial magistrate had jurisdiction. In doing so, the High Court, looked at the pleadings filed by the parties in the suit in the subordinate court and the evidence and came to the conclusion, rightly in our view, that there was no material before the trial magistrate to show that the value of the suit land was more than that reflected in the pleadings…”
28. Similarly, in Wanjala v Namwamba & another [2024] KEHC 15587 (KLR ), the High Court, while considering an objection based on the alleged value of the subject matter observed that an applicant could not merely speculate on the likely value of the claim without demonstrating the basis upon which the alleged excess of jurisdiction was founded.
29. Applying the foregoing principles, the Applicant principally relies on the KES 24,570,000 reflected in the loan statement as the value of the subject matter. However, the evidence does not demonstrate a consistent demand for that amount, nor is it reflected in the Applicant’s substantive monetary prayer.
30. In the circumstances, the Court cannot, without more, treat the figure in the loan statement as conclusive of the value of the subject matter for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction.
31. While the absence of a prayer for KES 24,570,000/= is not, by itself, determinative, the Court must, in accordance with National Housing Corporation v Chief Magistrate Court, Mombasa & 2 Others (supra), consider the substance of the dispute and the evidence establishing the value of its subject matter.
32. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the KES 24,570,000/= reflected in the loan statement represents the value of the subject matter, as opposed to the Respondent’s disputed computation of the alleged outstanding balance. The Applicant has therefore failed to establish that the subject matter exceeds the KES 20,000,000/= pecuniary limit under Section 7(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.
33. It is not expected, for instance, for pecuniary jurisdiction to operate as a yoyo where an amount in the neighbourhood of KES. 20,000,000/= will oscillate between the subordinate Court and the High Court due to appreciations of currency.
34. Now turning to the basis of review , the Application is brought principally under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Applicant was therefore required to demonstrate a recognised ground for review, namely, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
35. Having found that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the receiving court lacks the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, I find no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned directions warranting review.
36. Further, the Supreme Court in Parliamentary Service Commission v Martin Nyaga Wambora & 36 Others [2018] eKLR affirmed that
“an application for review of exercise of discretion is not an appeal or a chance for the applicant to re-argue his/her application.”
37. In the present case, the Applicant's contention essentially seeks to have the Court adopt KES 24,570,000/= as the value of the subject matter, a proposition which, as already found, is not established by the material before the Court. The threshold for review has therefore not been met.
DISPOSITION AND ORDERS
I. In the result, the Notice of Motion dated 20 th November 2025 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
II. The directions issued on 19 th November 2025 transferring HCCOMM/E758/2025 to the Chief Magistrates’ Court for further allocation and marking the High Court file as closed shall remain in force.
III. There shall be no order as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered on virtual platform in the presence of:
Kevin Babu - Court Assistant