Background:
1. This Appeal emanates from the judgement delivered on 18th October 2022 dismissing the Appellant’s case at the small claim court. The Brief facts of the case is from the pleadings is that vide an amended plaint dated 29th March 2022, the Respondent herein decried the actions of the Appellant of repossessing her motor vehicle without following the due process.
2. The Respondent faulted the Appellant for failing to follow the due process and ignoring the fact that she was just a guarantor and the Appellant would have claimed the debt from the estate of the deceased.
3. The Respondent explained the financial difficulty she faced as a result of the Appellant’s action and prayed that the seizure of her motor vehicle be declared illegal and unlawful, the orders compelling the Appellant release the said Motor Vehicle, permanent injunction and general damages and loss of user from 22nd February 2022 to the date of the Judgement.
4. The Appellant herein defended the suit at the Trial Court vide a Response dated 27th May 2022, witness statement and list documents dated 30th May 2022. The Appellant informed Court that it notified the Respondent before repossessing the motor vehicle and that the Respondent availed her motor vehicle to act as security for the loan.
5. The Appellant defended their actions and lawful and procedural and questioned the locus of the Respondent in the matter. Parties filed written submission in support of their respective cases and the Trial Court considered rendered judgement dated 18th October 2022 ordering the release of the Motor vehicle to the Respondent herein.
The Appeal.
6. The Appellants herein aggrieved by the decision preferred an appeal to this Court seeking to set aside the judgement of the small claims court, the grounds of appeal are as follows:
(i) The Honorable Magistrate erred in Law and fact in finding that the Respondent had proved her case on balance of probabilities.
(ii) The Honorable Magistrate misdirected himself by finding that the Respondent has the locus standi to file and sustain suit leading to favorable judgement in her favour
(iii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to properly consider that the borrower Solomon Mwangi had died and the Respondent had not taken out any grant for and on behalf of the deceased.
(iv) The Honorable Magistrate erred in disregarding regular loan repayments and default by the borrower.
(v) The Honorable Magistrate erred in finding that the motor vehicle KCH 534Y be released unconditionally despite being an outstanding loan.
(vi) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to consider that the Respondent had by conduct admitted that the borrower had defaulted and ready to liquidate the outstanding loan.
(vii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to consider that the repossession of the motor vehicle KCH 524Y was out of default by the borrower and his death was never communicated timeously by the Appellant.
(viii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in disregarding the need to balance the commercial interest of the Appellant who stands exposed by orders directing the unconditional release of the motor vehicles despite there being an outstanding loan.
(ix) The Honorable Magistrate erred in issuing a relief that was not framed in a manner granted more so an order of the release of the Motor Vehicle KCH 534Y to the Respondent unconditionally.
(x) The Honorable Magistrate erred in awarding cost to the Respondent despite there being a breach of contract obligation by the borrower making the Respondent non- deserving of such a relief.
7. The Appeal proceed by way of written submissions which will be considered together with the cited authorities.
Analysis and Determination:
8. Having carefully perused the pleadings, the record of appeal, the trial Court’s judgment, and the parties’ submissions, this Court frames the issue for determination is whether the Trial Court erred in its decision.
9. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals from the Small Claims Court is strictly circumscribed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and are limited to matters of law and the appeal is final. Whereas there has been no universally accepted definition of the term ‘matters of law’.
10. In discharging its appellate role in matters from the Small Claims Court, the High Court should remain alive to the rationale behind the establishment of the Small Claims Court as a special and unique Court which is different from the mainstream civil Courts. It must always be remembered that the focal point of the Small Claims Courts is expeditious disposal of cases and that is why the Court is not bound by the strict rules of evidence [Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act] and further the Court has power to control of its own procedure in determining any claim before it subject to regard to the principles of natural justice [Section 17 of the Act].
11. The High Court, therefore, is duty-bound to assist the Small Claims Court realize it’s said objective and it ought to consider appeals from the said Court through those special lenses in view of the various sections referred to above.
12. Having said so, since the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof, then that is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
13. The issue for determination for this Court is whether the Trial Court erred in its finding. Having analysed the pleadings, it’s not in dispute that the Appellant pursued the Respondent for the debt of the deceased. I am satisfied that the Appellant ought to have taken other measures before repossessing the motor vehicle for the Respondent. No evidence was placed before the Court to demonstrate the due process that was followed before repossessing her motor vehicle.
14. On page 40 of the Record of appeal there is a letter addressed to the deceased which was sent through registered post office dated 15th September 2021. The death certificate availed before the trial court shows that the date of death of the deceased was on 16th July 2021. This clearly shows that the same was done after the death had occurred.
15. From the analysis of the case, the Appellant has not demonstrated any efforts it made towards the estate of the deceased. It is not dispute that the borrower died and before going after the Respondent, some attempts ought to have been made to recover the outstanding monthly instalments. It is worth noting that the Appellant herein challenged the locus standi of the Respondent to commence the suit at the Trial Court. This shows that he acknowledged that the estate of the deceased had a role to play in the loan repayment and not the Respondent.
16. The Respondent availed a letter dated 18th February 2022 which demonstrated her efforts in settling the loan and enumerating the payments she had made towards the loan repayment; the Appellant has not disputed that or addresses the same.
17. From the totality of record, it is my finding that the Trial Court came to a determination that was reflective of the evidence on record and there is no reason for this court to interfere. The Appellant’s appeal lacks merit. The Respondent is awarded costs.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 3rd day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
No appearance for the Appellant.
Anyoka Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
Michael :Court Assistant.
1. This Appeal emanates from the judgement delivered on 18th October 2022 dismissing the Appellant’s case at the small claim court. The Brief facts of the case is from the pleadings is that vide an amended plaint dated 29th March 2022, the Respondent herein decried the actions of the Appellant of repossessing her motor vehicle without following the due process.
2. The Respondent faulted the Appellant for failing to follow the due process and ignoring the fact that she was just a guarantor and the Appellant would have claimed the debt from the estate of the deceased.
3. The Respondent explained the financial difficulty she faced as a result of the Appellant’s action and prayed that the seizure of her motor vehicle be declared illegal and unlawful, the orders compelling the Appellant release the said Motor Vehicle, permanent injunction and general damages and loss of user from 22nd February 2022 to the date of the Judgement.
4. The Appellant herein defended the suit at the Trial Court vide a Response dated 27th May 2022, witness statement and list documents dated 30th May 2022. The Appellant informed Court that it notified the Respondent before repossessing the motor vehicle and that the Respondent availed her motor vehicle to act as security for the loan.
5. The Appellant defended their actions and lawful and procedural and questioned the locus of the Respondent in the matter. Parties filed written submission in support of their respective cases and the Trial Court considered rendered judgement dated 18th October 2022 ordering the release of the Motor vehicle to the Respondent herein.
The Appeal.
6. The Appellants herein aggrieved by the decision preferred an appeal to this Court seeking to set aside the judgement of the small claims court, the grounds of appeal are as follows:
(i) The Honorable Magistrate erred in Law and fact in finding that the Respondent had proved her case on balance of probabilities.
(ii) The Honorable Magistrate misdirected himself by finding that the Respondent has the locus standi to file and sustain suit leading to favorable judgement in her favour
(iii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to properly consider that the borrower Solomon Mwangi had died and the Respondent had not taken out any grant for and on behalf of the deceased.
(iv) The Honorable Magistrate erred in disregarding regular loan repayments and default by the borrower.
(v) The Honorable Magistrate erred in finding that the motor vehicle KCH 534Y be released unconditionally despite being an outstanding loan.
(vi) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to consider that the Respondent had by conduct admitted that the borrower had defaulted and ready to liquidate the outstanding loan.
(vii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in failing to consider that the repossession of the motor vehicle KCH 524Y was out of default by the borrower and his death was never communicated timeously by the Appellant.
(viii) The Honorable Magistrate erred in disregarding the need to balance the commercial interest of the Appellant who stands exposed by orders directing the unconditional release of the motor vehicles despite there being an outstanding loan.
(ix) The Honorable Magistrate erred in issuing a relief that was not framed in a manner granted more so an order of the release of the Motor Vehicle KCH 534Y to the Respondent unconditionally.
(x) The Honorable Magistrate erred in awarding cost to the Respondent despite there being a breach of contract obligation by the borrower making the Respondent non- deserving of such a relief.
7. The Appeal proceed by way of written submissions which will be considered together with the cited authorities.
Analysis and Determination:
8. Having carefully perused the pleadings, the record of appeal, the trial Court’s judgment, and the parties’ submissions, this Court frames the issue for determination is whether the Trial Court erred in its decision.
9. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals from the Small Claims Court is strictly circumscribed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and are limited to matters of law and the appeal is final. Whereas there has been no universally accepted definition of the term ‘matters of law’.
10. In discharging its appellate role in matters from the Small Claims Court, the High Court should remain alive to the rationale behind the establishment of the Small Claims Court as a special and unique Court which is different from the mainstream civil Courts. It must always be remembered that the focal point of the Small Claims Courts is expeditious disposal of cases and that is why the Court is not bound by the strict rules of evidence [Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act] and further the Court has power to control of its own procedure in determining any claim before it subject to regard to the principles of natural justice [Section 17 of the Act].
11. The High Court, therefore, is duty-bound to assist the Small Claims Court realize it’s said objective and it ought to consider appeals from the said Court through those special lenses in view of the various sections referred to above.
12. Having said so, since the instant appeal calls upon this Court to ascertain whether the trial Court properly handled the issue of burden of proof, then that is a matter of law. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act deal with the burden of proof.
13. The issue for determination for this Court is whether the Trial Court erred in its finding. Having analysed the pleadings, it’s not in dispute that the Appellant pursued the Respondent for the debt of the deceased. I am satisfied that the Appellant ought to have taken other measures before repossessing the motor vehicle for the Respondent. No evidence was placed before the Court to demonstrate the due process that was followed before repossessing her motor vehicle.
14. On page 40 of the Record of appeal there is a letter addressed to the deceased which was sent through registered post office dated 15th September 2021. The death certificate availed before the trial court shows that the date of death of the deceased was on 16th July 2021. This clearly shows that the same was done after the death had occurred.
15. From the analysis of the case, the Appellant has not demonstrated any efforts it made towards the estate of the deceased. It is not dispute that the borrower died and before going after the Respondent, some attempts ought to have been made to recover the outstanding monthly instalments. It is worth noting that the Appellant herein challenged the locus standi of the Respondent to commence the suit at the Trial Court. This shows that he acknowledged that the estate of the deceased had a role to play in the loan repayment and not the Respondent.
16. The Respondent availed a letter dated 18th February 2022 which demonstrated her efforts in settling the loan and enumerating the payments she had made towards the loan repayment; the Appellant has not disputed that or addresses the same.
17. From the totality of record, it is my finding that the Trial Court came to a determination that was reflective of the evidence on record and there is no reason for this court to interfere. The Appellant’s appeal lacks merit. The Respondent is awarded costs.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 3rd day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
No appearance for the Appellant.
Anyoka Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
Michael :Court Assistant.