10 Key Court Decisions That Are Changing Small Claims Court in Kenya
If you deal with Small Claims Court (SCC) cases in Kenya—whether a business owner, a tenant, an insurance agent, or just someone interested in legal trends—some recent rulings might change how you approach legal disputes. These decisions clarify court powers, define legal responsibilities, and sometimes, shake up long-standing legal principles.
Here’s a breakdown of 10 key cases shaping the SCC’s jurisdiction and what they mean for you.
1. Can SCC Decisions Be Challenged Through Judicial Review?
Case: Wanyiri v Eldoret SCC
A judgment debtor (someone who owes money under a court ruling) challenged a decree, arguing that her rights were violated when a warrant of arrest was issued against her. The High Court allowed the case to be heard, suggesting that Small Claims Court decisions can be reviewed through Judicial Review (JR), not just appeals.
What this means:
This case opens the door for more scrutiny of SCC decisions, especially when claimants feel their constitutional rights have been violated.
2. SCC Can Handle Personal Injury Claims
Cases: Jane v Runga & Gichovi v Kilem
In these two cases, the court confirmed that SCC has jurisdiction over personal injury claims from road traffic accidents. This overruled a previous case that had questioned SCC’s power in these matters.
What this means:
If you’re involved in a personal injury case (e.g., after a road accident), you can now take it to the Small Claims Court for a faster and more affordable resolution.
3. When a Cow Becomes a Legal Dispute
Case: Macharia v Wandeto
This case involved a cow that couldn’t be milked, leading to a lawsuit over breach of warranty under the Sale of Goods Act. The court ruled on what qualifies as a breach of warranty and fitness for purpose.
What this means:
If you buy something that doesn’t work as promised, you have legal grounds for a refund or compensation—a key takeaway for buyers or sellers.
4. Spouses Are Protected from Auctioneers
Case: Nyoko & Another v Bapa Limited
The court ruled that auctioneers cannot seize household goods owned jointly by a spouse who is not part of a lawsuit.
What this means:
If debt collection actions involve a married couple, only the debtor’s property can be attached—not shared household items. This is a big win for families facing legal battles.
5. Government Offices Must Follow SCC Rules
Case: St Mary’s Tachasis Secondary School v Leev Contractors
The Attorney General’s Office tried to set aside a default judgment (a ruling made because they failed to show up in court), but the SCC refused to grant leniency.
What this means:
Even government legal teams must adhere to SCC’s strict deadlines—no one gets a free pass.
6. Insurance Companies Must Get Consent Before Suing
Case: Mundia v Kigo
An insurance company filed a claim but was dismissed because they didn’t have written consent from the insured party to sue.
What this means:
Insurers must have authorization before making claims on behalf of their clients. This protects policyholders from legal action they didn’t agree to.
7. SCC Can Handle Rent Deposit Disputes
Case: Sadique v Buru
The ruling confirmed that SCC has jurisdiction over rent deposit disputes, even when the tenant did not take possession of the property.
What this means:
Landlords and tenants can use SCC to resolve disputes over deposits, saving time and legal costs.
8. Land Agents Can Claim Unpaid Commissions
Case: Ruto v Cherono
A land agent was cut out of a deal after introducing a buyer to a seller. The court ruled that the agent was entitled to their commission.
What this means:
If you’re a real estate agent, this case strengthens your right to claim commissions, even if a seller tries to bypass you.
9. Courts Must Be Consistent in Their Judgments
Case: Kojwang v Kaunda
The ruling emphasized that trial courts must ensure their final decision matches their observations—otherwise, it constitutes a legal error.
What this means:
Inconsistent judgments can be challenged, ensuring fairer rulings for all parties involved.
10. Raise Objections Early, or Lose Your Chance
Case: Ominet v Iterkon
The court ruled that if a lawyer doesn’t object early on, they cannot later challenge the validity of documents used in the case.
What this means:
If you’re involved in a lawsuit, speak up early—waiting too long may cost you your chance to challenge key evidence.
Final Thoughts
These decisions clarify and expand what SCC can handle, making it an even more powerful tool for quick justice in Kenya. Whether you’re a business owner, a tenant, or just someone interested in legal matters, knowing your rights in SCC can save you time and money.
If you’re facing a small claim, consider whether SCC is the best option—it might be faster, cheaper, and more effective than you think.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you need specific legal guidance, talk or chat on 0708111222.