Two Judges, Two Different Approaches in Interpreting Territorial Jurisdiction for Small Claims Courts

Generated image of lady justice with a gavel in the front

Jurisdiction may not be the most exciting legal topic, but it’s one of the most important. If a court doesn’t have the right to hear a case, everything that follows is meaningless. That’s exactly what happened in two recent appeals—Wachiuri v 15 Minutes Logistics Ltd & 2 others and 15 Minutes Logistics Ltd v Mbala—where the issue was whether the Nairobi Small Claims Court had the authority to hear the cases in the first place. Let’s break down what went down and what we can learn from these rulings.

What Both Cases Had in Common

  1. It All Came Down to Jurisdiction
    • Both cases were about whether the Small Claims Court in Nairobi had the right to hear them under Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act.
    • The appellants argued that these cases should have been filed elsewhere because the cause of action happened outside Nairobi.
  2. The Go-To Court Cases on Jurisdiction Came Up
    • Both judgments referenced the famous Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd (1989) KLR 1, which basically says, “No jurisdiction, no case. Period.”
    • Another classic, Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696, was also mentioned to explain when a case can be thrown out early for lack of jurisdiction.
  3. They Both Dug Into Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act
    • Both rulings looked at whether a case should be filed where the cause of action happened, where the defendant or claimant lives, or where the contract was signed or performed.
  4. The Small Claims Court’s Decision Was Overturned
    • In both cases, the High Court stepped in and said the Small Claims Court got it wrong.

Where They Took Different Approaches

FactorWachiuri v 15 Minutes15 Minutes v Mbala
Final DecisionNairobi Small Claims Court had no jurisdiction, so case struck out.Nairobi Small Claims Court had no jurisdiction, but instead of dismissing, case was transferred to Taveta.
Why?The dispute happened in Mwatate, not Nairobi. The court should have looked at where the cause of action took place (Section 15(1)(d)).The dispute happened in Taveta, so instead of dismissing, the court opted to transfer the case under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act.
OutcomeCase dismissed with costs awarded to the appellant.Case moved to the right court (Taveta), and each party covered their own costs.

Did the Courts Overlook Key Aspects of Jurisdiction?

One major issue in both cases is that the courts seemed laser-focused on where the defendant lived when determining jurisdiction. However, under Section 15 of the Small Claims Court Act (SCC Act), jurisdiction is broader and includes where the claimant lives or does business—something the courts appeared to ignore.
This suggests that the judges may have relied more on Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, which primarily considers where the defendant resides, rather than the more nuanced Small Claims Court Act. This is problematic because the SCC Act was specifically designed to make small claims more accessible and fair. If judges fail to apply it correctly, claimants could be unfairly forced to file cases far from where they live or conduct business, which defeats the purpose of the Small Claims Court’s existence.
Judges Must Understand the SCC Act’s Unique Rules
For the Small Claims Court system to function effectively, judges must be well-versed in the SCC Act and how it differs from the Civil Procedure Act. The SCC Act is meant to make justice more accessible, not add hurdles. By failing to properly consider where the claimant resides, the courts in these cases may have made it unnecessarily difficult for claimants to access justice.
Did the Courts Apply Rule 34 of the Small Claims Court Rules Properly?
Rule 34 of the Small Claims Court Rules allows a respondent to apply for a case to be transferred if it was filed outside the jurisdiction where they reside or where the transaction took place. However, the rule also states that:

  • A transfer should only happen if the requesting party provides reasonable grounds.
  • The other party should be given a chance to respond before the court makes a decision.
    While 15 minutes vs Mbala correctly applied this by transferring the case, Wachuiri vs 15 Minutes simply dismissed the case instead of considering transfer as an option. This raises concerns about inconsistency in judicial approach—if one case was allowed to transfer, why wasn’t the other? A more uniform application of Rule 34 would help ensure consistency in decisions and fairness to litigants.

Lessons Learned

  1. Judges Need to Fully Apply the SCC Act
    • The Small Claims Court Act exists to provide simple and accessible justice, and judges should prioritize its provisions over general civil procedure rules when handling SCC cases.
  2. Jurisdiction Includes the Claimant, Not Just the Defendant
    • Courts should consider where the claimant lives or does business, not just where the defendant resides.
  3. Transfers Should Be Used More Consistently
    • Rule 34 allows for case transfers instead of dismissals, and courts should use this option more consistently.

Final Thoughts

These cases show that while courts are getting jurisdiction mostly right, there are still gaps in how the Small Claims Court Act is being applied. Judges must familiarize themselves with the SCC Act and apply it as intended, considering all relevant factors—including where the claimant lives—when determining jurisdiction. Additionally, Rule 34 on case transfers should be applied uniformly to avoid unnecessary dismissals and procedural delays.
For litigants, these cases highlight the importance of filing cases in the right jurisdiction from the start and being prepared to argue for a transfer instead of a dismissal if jurisdiction is questioned.

Scroll to Top