Gathaiya v Attorney General & 2 others; & 176 Interested Parties (Petition E008 & E010 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 290 (KLR) (22 January 2026) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined whether the Small Claims Court can adjudicate personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents (RTA) under Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act and Rule 5(3) of the Small Claims Court Rules 2019. This included analyzing statutory language, legislative intent, and conflicts with procedural requirements under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act 2013.
• The court examined the validity of Rule 25(1), which incorporates Civil Procedure Rules allowing committal to civil jail for debt enforcement. It held the rule unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Small Claims Court Act, as it exceeded delegated authority under Article 94(6) of the Constitution and violated Article 24(2)(a)-(c) (limitation of rights to liberty).
• The court assessed whether the Act's strict 60-day timelines (Section 34(1)), limited appeal scope (Section 38), and procedural rules (e.g., Rule 23(3) admitting evidence without maker examination) violate the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution. It concluded these provisions were not unconstitutional but emphasized their inapplicability to complex RTA personal injury claims.

Holdings

• The court held that claims for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents are excluded from Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, and the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such claims. This determination was based on the nature of RTA claims requiring proof of negligence and the incompatibility of the Act's procedural timelines with the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, 2013.
• The court found that Sections 34 and 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and Rules 18 and 23(3) do not violate Article 50(1) of the Constitution. These provisions were deemed consistent with the Act's purpose of expediting small claims resolution.
• Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules was declared unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Act as read with Article 94(6) of the Constitution. The rule's incorporation of civil jail committal provisions exceeded delegated authority and violated Article 24(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution.
• The claim for damages in Petition No. E010 of 2024 was declined, as the arrest and incarceration were based on applicable provisions under the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court emphasized that committal to civil jail must meet strict statutory criteria of wilful default, not mere inability to pay.
• All pending personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents in the Small Claims Court were ordered transferred to the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction. This was to prevent prejudice to litigants who filed cases before the jurisdictional issue was resolved.

Remedies

• The court declined the claim for damages in Petition No. E010 of 2024, as the arrest and incarceration were based on provisions later found unconstitutional.
• The court declared that Sections 34 and 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and Rules 18 and 23(3) of the Small Claims Court Rules do not violate Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
• The court ordered that each party bear their own costs in this public interest litigation, as it is a matter of constitutional significance.
• The court declared Rule 25 of the Small Claims Court Rules unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Small Claims Court Act as read with Article 94(6) of the Constitution for incorporating provisions for arrest and committal to civil jail.
• The court declared that claims for personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents are excluded from Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, thereby removing the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
• The court ordered that all pending claims for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents in the Small Claims Court be transferred to the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction.

Legal Principles

• The court emphasized principles of Natural Justice, particularly fairness in procedural matters, to assess the Small Claims Court’s ability to handle personal injury claims. This included evaluating whether the Act’s streamlined procedures (e.g., exclusion of strict evidence rules, 60-day timelines) compromised procedural fairness under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
• The Mischief Rule was invoked to examine the problem the Small Claims Court Act aimed to address. The court considered whether the Act’s provisions were designed to exclude complex claims like personal injuries from road traffic accidents, which require detailed factual and evidentiary scrutiny beyond the Act’s scope.
• The court adopted the Purposive Approach to analyze the intent behind the Small Claims Court Act, particularly its objective to provide an accessible, informal, and expedited resolution for small-value disputes. This approach was used to assess whether personal injury claims from road traffic accidents aligned with the Act's legislative purpose.
• The court applied the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the plain and unambiguous language of Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act to determine jurisdiction over personal injury claims. The rule was used to interpret the scope of the Act's provisions without extraneous considerations.
• The court declared Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules ultra vires Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Act, as it incorporated provisions for arrest and committal to civil jail not explicitly authorized by the parent statute. The review focused on whether the rule exceeded the delegated authority under Article 94(6) of the Constitution.

Precedent Name

• Charles Lutta Kasamani v Concord Insurance Co Ltd
• Alcoholic Beverages Association of Kenya v Kenya Film and Classification Board
• Dharmagna Patel v T.A
• Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance
• Stephen Mwau Wariari v Dennis Mutwiri Muriuki
• County Government of Nyeri v Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu
• Katiba Institute v Attorney General
• Wachira v Mwai
• Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic
• Ogwari v Hersi
• Gichovi v Kilem

Cited Statute

• Constitution of Kenya, 2010
• Small Claims Court Act, Chapter 10 LAWS OF KENYA
• Small Claims Court Rules, 2019
• Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, 2013
• Civil Procedure Act

Judge Name

• Justice R. Nyakundi
• Justice E. Ogola
• Justice A. Mabeya

Passage Text

• A declaration hereby issues that rule 25 of the Small Claims Court Rules is in breach of Article 24 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of Kenya for incorporating the provisions for arrest and committal to civil jail under the Civil Procedure Act. It is therefore unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 37, 39 and 40 of the Act as read together with Article 94(6) of the Constitution of Kenya.
• Accordingly, we find and hold that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act.