In a judgment delivered on January 22, the court ruled that injury claims linked to road accidents fall outside the mandate of the Small Claims Court as provided under the Small Claims Court Act, 2019.
The decision followed consolidated petitions filed in 2024 that challenged the scope and interpretation of the law governing the Small Claims Court.
In its ruling, the High Court declared that claims for personal injuries resulting from road traffic accidents are excluded from matters listed under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act.
Purpose of the Small Claims Court
The Small Claims Court was established to offer a fast, affordable, and simplified way of resolving disputes involving relatively small amounts of money, capped at Ksh1 million.
It mainly handles straightforward commercial and monetary disputes using simplified procedures. Litigants are allowed to represent themselves, evidence rules are relaxed, and cases are determined using standardised forms to speed up the process.
The Small Claims Court was established to offer a fast, affordable, and simplified way of resolving disputes involving relatively small amounts of money, capped at Ksh1 million.
It mainly handles straightforward commercial and monetary disputes using simplified procedures. Litigants are allowed to represent themselves, evidence rules are relaxed, and cases are determined using standardised forms to speed up the process.
Why Injury Claims Are Excluded
According to the High Court, personal injury cases from road accidents are legally complex and require detailed proof of negligence, liability, and damages.
Such cases often involve expert testimony, medical evidence, and extensive legal arguments, making them unsuitable for the simplified procedures used in the Small Claims Court.
The court noted that the Small Claims Court was not designed to handle disputes that demand in-depth legal analysis and complex evidentiary standards.
According to the High Court, personal injury cases from road accidents are legally complex and require detailed proof of negligence, liability, and damages.
Such cases often involve expert testimony, medical evidence, and extensive legal arguments, making them unsuitable for the simplified procedures used in the Small Claims Court.
The court noted that the Small Claims Court was not designed to handle disputes that demand in-depth legal analysis and complex evidentiary standards.
Transfer of Pending Cases
As a result of the ruling, the High Court directed that all pending road traffic accident injury cases currently before the Small Claims Court be transferred to the Magistrates’ Courts, which have the jurisdiction and procedural framework to deal with such matters.
The judge stated that these cases are deemed to have been properly transferred to courts with the legal authority to hear and determine them.
Other Key Findings
While upholding the constitutionality of several Small Claims Court procedures, the High Court struck down Rule 25, which allowed for arrest and committal to civil jail, declaring it unconstitutional.
The ruling has now clarified the limits of the Small Claims Court and outlined the types of cases that qualify — and those that do not — for filing under its framework.
As a result of the ruling, the High Court directed that all pending road traffic accident injury cases currently before the Small Claims Court be transferred to the Magistrates’ Courts, which have the jurisdiction and procedural framework to deal with such matters.
The judge stated that these cases are deemed to have been properly transferred to courts with the legal authority to hear and determine them.
Other Key Findings
While upholding the constitutionality of several Small Claims Court procedures, the High Court struck down Rule 25, which allowed for arrest and committal to civil jail, declaring it unconstitutional.
The ruling has now clarified the limits of the Small Claims Court and outlined the types of cases that qualify — and those that do not — for filing under its framework.