Read time: 5 minutes

Introduction

On 15th September, 2023, the Small Claims Court sitting in Nairobi issued a ruling to wit dismissing a Claimant’s claim for being filed outside the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that the claim emanated from a landlord and tenant relationship. Aggrieved, the Claimant appealed to the High Court on grounds inter alia that the trial court erred in law and by failing to appreciate that the suit related to a post tenancy agreement and refund of rent deposit post tenancy.

Upon consideration of the Record of Appeal and the respective submissions of parties, it is clear that the following were the set out issues for determination by the Court;

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal;
  2. Whether the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising from breach of contract relating to rent deposit; and
  3. Limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Analysis of the case

Guided by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act as well as the verdict of the Court of Appeal in Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo [2010] eKLR, it was the Court’s finding that the High Court when dealing with appeals emanating from the Small Claims Court assumes the status equivalent to the Court of Appeal handling a matter on a second appeal basis. Consequently, this being a second appeal, the Court was duty bound to confine itself to matters of law.

In addressing the second issue in dispute, the learned judge observed that jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court under Section 12 of its parent Act is limited to any civil claim relating to;

  1. A contract for sale and supply of goods of services;
  2. A contract relating to money held and received;
  3. Liability in tort in respect of loss or damage caused to any property or for the delivery of moveable property;
  4. Compensation for personal injuries; and
  5. Sett-off and counterclaim under any contract.

The casus belli in the instant case however, was whether the claim relating to rental deposit/arrears between the Appellant and the Respondent herein falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

In its determination, the Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Namisi considered that the Appellant’s claim was a breach of contract relating to rent deposit paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. It was therefore the finding of the Court that the Appellant’s claim falls squarely within the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Small Claims Act and therefore the trial court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim.

The Court in making such a profound determination relied on the case of Greenlife Crop Protection Africa Limited v Trovic Ventures Limited & 2 Others (Civil Appeal E148 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27359 (KLR).

Lastly, on the issue of the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the Judge while placing reliance on the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act affirmed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is limited to Kshs. 1,000,000/=. Further, that the statutory form for lodging a claim binds any Claimant to waive and forfeit the recovery of any/all sums in excess of Kshs. 1,000,000/=.

In the present case, the Respondent had raised a Preliminary Objection in the trial court to wit disapproving the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine a claim where the Claimant sought a refund of rent deposit of Kshs 230,000/= together with punitive and exemplary damages to the sum of Kshs 800,000/=, totaling to Kshs 1,030,000/= which exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

The above being clear, the learned Judge came to a reasoning that no specific amount was quoted in the Claimant/Appellant’s prayers, rather, it was only in the description of the nature of the claim that the Appellant quoted the abstract sum of Kshs. 800,000/=. Thus, considering the Appellant’s claim was merely a suggestion/argument, the same cannot be binding to a court of law as the award of damages is a reserve of judicial discretion.

Conclusion

In rendering its judgment, the learned Judge held that the trial court’s decision was marred by an incorrect exposition of the law. Consequently, the decision was set aside and the matter scheduled to be heard on merit before a different Adjudicator.

Inferences

  1. Access to justice; Although self-effacing, the decision by the High Court on determining the jurisdiction of the small claims court to hear cases of tenants suing for rental deposits is illuminating more so to the common mwananchi, a majority of whom are tenants albeit oblivious of their rights and legal remedies against their landlords in similar instances.
  2. Enforcement of contractual obligations; The judgement emphasizes on the quintessence of contractual obligations between parties.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this alert should neither be construed as legal advice from JRO ADVOCATES LLP and/or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

At JRO ADVOCATES LLP we continue to monitor the implementation of the law and provide first hand and prompt feedback. For more information or queries, please contact our team of experienced advocates for any clarifications or appointments through +254113230047 or via email through info@jroadvocatesllp.co.ke

Author: Trevor Oduor

Advocate