Understanding the 60-Day Rule in Small Claims Court

Gavel on a white background

In legal battles, time can be both a friend and a foe. One of the contentious issues in Kenya’s Small Claims Court (SCC) is the interpretation of the 60-day rule under Section 34(1) of the SCC Act. Should this time-frame be a hard deadline that automatically ousts the court’s jurisdiction, or should it be applied flexibly? Let’s break it down and explore why a strict interpretation could be a major roadblock to justice.

What is the 60-Day Rule?

Section 34(1) of the SCC Act states:

“All proceedings before the Court on any particular day so far as is practicable shall be heard and determined on the same day or on a day-to-day basis until final determination of the matter which shall be within sixty days from the date of filing the claim.”

At face value, this seems to suggest that all cases must be determined within 60 days. But what happens when a case surpasses this timeline due to factors beyond a litigant’s control, such as court delays or adjournments requested by the opposing party?

Why a Strict Interpretation is Problematic

Some argue that once 60 days pass, the Court automatically loses jurisdiction, and the case should be dismissed. However, this rigid interpretation ignores a crucial phrase in the law: “so far as is practicable.”

This wording introduces flexibility, allowing the Court to consider factors beyond a litigant’s control rather than punishing claimants for delays caused by the system. If the 60-day period were a strict cut-off, claimants could lose their right to justice simply because the Court set their hearing date past the deadline—a situation that is both unfair and unconstitutional.

What Was the Intent Behind the 60-Day Rule?

The Small Claims Court Act was designed to enhance access to justice and promote speedy resolution of cases. The Hansard records from Parliament debates show that lawmakers were primarily concerned with delays in Kenya’s judicial system and wanted to create a more efficient process. However, they did not intend for the 60-day rule to become a hard-and-fast restriction that denies claimants their right to be heard. Instead, it was meant to prevent unnecessary adjournments and keep cases moving swiftly.

Interestingly, this amendment was added much later through the Business Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2021, suggesting it was meant as a guideline rather than an absolute limitation.

The Misuse of Precedent: Why Public Procurement Cases Are Different

Opponents of this argument often rely on the ADK Technologies Case, which upheld strict timelines in the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act, 2015. However, this comparison is misleading because:

  • The PPAD Act aims to prevent procurement delays and misuse of public resources.
  • The SCC Act focuses on access to justice for individuals and businesses.

Public procurement laws are designed to curb abuse of process, while small claims courts exist to facilitate justice for ordinary Kenyans. The two laws serve entirely different purposes, and a one-size-fits-all interpretation does not apply.

Legal Precedents Favor a Flexible Approach

Kenyan courts have repeatedly ruled that ouster clauses (which seek to restrict court jurisdiction) must be interpreted strictly. The case of Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Another Ex Parte Selex Sistemi Integrati [2008] eKLR set out clear tests for evaluating such clauses:

  1. If the wording is ambiguous, courts should uphold their jurisdiction rather than ousting it.
  2. If an ouster clause contradicts the main objective of the Act, it should be invalidated.
  3. If an ouster clause violates constitutional rights, it is void.
  4. An ouster clause must serve the public interest and promote good governance.

Applying these tests to Section 34(1) of the SCC Act, it is evident that:

  • The phrase “so far as is practicable” makes the provision ambiguous.
  • A strict time limit contradicts the SCC Act’s primary goal of facilitating access to justice.
  • Automatically dismissing cases would violate constitutional rights under Articles 48 and 50 (access to justice and the right to a fair hearing).
  • There is no public interest justification for punishing claimants due to court delays.

The Real-World Impact of a Strict 60-Day Rule

If the courts adopted a rigid interpretation of the 60-day rule, it could lead to absurd consequences:

  • Claimants could be denied justice because of administrative delays beyond their control.
  • Adjudicators might rush cases to meet the deadline rather than ensuring fair hearings.
  • Judicial burnout could increase as magistrates struggle to handle heavy caseloads within unrealistic timelines.

In Kleen Homes Case, Justice Aburili highlighted the dangers of strict timelines, warning that they could create an unrealistic workload for judges and ultimately undermine the entire judicial system.

Final Thoughts: Courts Must Take a Reasonable Approach

Justice is not a race against the clock. While efficiency in the legal process is crucial, it should not come at the cost of fairness. The 60-day rule was never intended to be a rigid ouster clause—it was designed to promote expeditious case resolution without unfairly barring access to justice.

Given the legislative intent, constitutional guarantees, and judicial precedents, it is clear that the Preliminary Objection seeking to dismiss cases exceeding 60 days should be rejected. Courts must interpret the law purposively, ensuring that it serves the people, not just the clock.

What do you think? Should courts prioritize speed over fairness, or should they adopt a more reasonable approach that considers the realities of litigation? Let’s discuss in the comments below!

Got questions about Small Claims Court? Talk to us! We’re here to help you navigate the complexities of the law.

Scroll to Top