The Limits of the Small Claims Court’s Jurisdiction

There is particular concern as to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, with numerous judicial pronouncements on the subject. Of concern is the Judgement of the High Court in Gathaiya v Attorney General & 2 others [2026] KEHC (KLR), where the Court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain personal injury claims.

On the question of jurisdiction, the Court reaffirmed the settled principle that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute and cannot be conferred by implication, innovation or procedural craft. The High Court therefore took the view that a strict interpretation of Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, read together with Rule 5(3) of the Rules, does not allow the Small Claims Court to adjudicate on personal injury claims.

The High Court therefore took the view that a strict interpretation of Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, read together with Rule 5(3) of the Small Claims Court Rules, does not confer on that Court powers to adjudicate on personal injury claims.

In the Court’s view, these are very complex matters that can only be determined by a Magistrate Court and may not fit within the philosophical foundation of the Small Claims Court as a “people’s court” intended to provide informal and uncomplicated proceedings for the resolution of small, low-value disputes.

Accordingly, the Court held that personal injury claims cannot qualify as small and simple claims within the meaning and intent of the Small Claims Court Act and therefore fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

Ultimately, while the Small Claims Court remains an important mechanism for access to justice, its jurisdiction must be exercised strictly within the confines of the law.

Get in touch:

Benedict Wachira

Partner

E: wachira@wandetolaw.co.ke 

Purity Kamau

Senior Associate

E: purity@wandetolaw.co.ke