Royal Mabati Factory Limited v Odero (Commercial Appeal E117 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 9051 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (26 June 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The first issue is whether the Trial Court erred in law in arriving at its judgment. The Appellant argued that the court misinterpreted the Small Claims Court Act, particularly Section 12(1), and failed to recognize the court's lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Appellant claimed the judgment was a nullity due to being delivered outside the 60-day statutory timeline under Section 34, which would mean the court had no jurisdiction at the time. The Court, however, dismissed these arguments, finding no legal error and that the timeline issue did not invalidate the judgment.
• The second issue is whether the jurisdiction of the court had ceased by the time the judgment was delivered, making it a nullity. The Appellant argued that the 60-day period under Section 34 expired before the judgment was given on 15th September 2023, thus the court lacked jurisdiction. The Court, however, found that non-compliance with the timeline does not invalidate the judgment unless there's prejudice, which the Appellant did not demonstrate. Therefore, the judgment was valid.

Holdings

• The Court rejected other grounds of appeal (e.g., photographic evidence, procedural compliance) as not demonstrated to affect the judgment's validity.
• The Court held that the Trial Court's judgment, delivered on 15th September 2023, was not null and void for exceeding the 60-day statutory timeline under Section 34, as the delay was not prejudicial or inordinate.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim under Section 12(1) of the Small Claims Court Act (contract for sale and supply of goods).
• The Court found no error in the Trial Court's interpretation of Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, as the Appellant's implied warranty and merchantable quality conditions were upheld.
• The Court determined the claim was not time-barred under the Limitations Act, as the right accrued on 28th October 2022 (date of acknowledgment of the complaint), not 2017.

Remedies

• The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Trial Court's decision, upholding the original judgment in favor of the Respondent for Kshs.958,000 plus costs and interest.
• The Respondent was awarded the costs of the Appeal, which are to be agreed upon or taxed at the lower scale, following the Court's determination that the appeal lacked merit.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court determined that the claim was not time-barred under the Limitations of Actions Act due to an acknowledgment of the dispute in 2022, which reset the limitation period under Sections 23(3) and 24(1).
• The court applied the doctrine of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act, specifically Section 16, which imposes an implied condition that goods are of merchantable quality and fit for their intended purpose.
• The court emphasized that the Civil Procedure Act and rules do not apply to the Small Claims Court, and that the court must have regard to the principles of natural justice in its procedure, as outlined in Section 17 of the Small Claims Court Act.
• The court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Respondent in accordance with the principle that costs follow the event, as stated in paragraph 24 of the judgment.
• The court held that the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim as it fell under the category of a contract for the sale and supply of goods, as defined in Section 12(1) of the Small Claims Court Act.

Precedent Name

• Nyagwoka Ogora alias Kennedy Kemoni Bwogora v Francis Osoro Maiko
• Crown Beverages Limited v MFI Document Solutions Limited
• Manchester Outfitters Services Limited and Another v Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited and Another

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The court analyzed whether the Appellant's implied warranty regarding the roof's 15-year durability and resistance to fading constituted a valid contractual obligation under Section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, which requires goods to be reasonably fit for their intended purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's expertise.
• The court determined that the Appellant, as a roofing product seller, was bound by the implied condition that the goods were of merchantable quality under Section 16(b) of the Sale of Goods Act, despite the Appellant's argument that the buyer's examination of the goods negated this obligation.

Cited Statute

• Small Claims Court Act, 2016
• Limitations of Actions Act, Cap 22
• Small Claims Court Act
• Sale of Goods Act, Chapter 31
• Evidence Act, Chapter 80

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Although section 34(2) of the SCCA is couched in mandatory terms, the court must look at the context of the provision in light of the guiding principles which include, inter alia, the timely disposal of all proceedings before the court using the least expensive method. The provision as to delivery of judgment is meant to be directory and not mandatory as it is not the intention of the SCCA to invalidate any proceedings that violate the statutory timelines.
• There may be instances where the delay is inordinate and such delay prejudicial to the parties. In such cases, the court may set aside the judgment as was held by the Court of Appeal in Manchester Outfitters Services Limited and Another v Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited and Another [2002] eKLR.
• By dint of Section of Section 23(3) and 24(1) of the Limitations of Actions Act the right accrues on and not before the date of the acknowledgement which in this case is 28th October 2022. Thus, the claim was not time-barred.

Damages / Relief Type