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 2nd Respondent contended the petition failed to specify how constitutional provisions (Articles 2, 10, 22(c), 23, 48, 50(1), 95(3), 109, 165, 159, 258) were violated and lacked a clear factual basis. The court acknowledged the Petitioner’s failure to plead violations with precision but found the petition valid as it sought statutory interpretation related to constitutional principles (Articles 48 and 10). The objection was overruled.
• The Interested Parties argued Sections 34(1) (60-day timelines) and 38 (limited appeals) and Rules 18 (no cross-examination of document creators) and 23(3) (expert evidence without maker attendance) contravened Article 50(1). The court found these provisions were designed to expedite small claims and did not violate fair hearing rights, as they applied to claims within the Court’s intended scope. However, their application to RTA personal injury claims was deemed incompatible with procedural fairness.
• The court evaluated if Rule 25(1), which permits arrest and committal to civil jail by referencing the Civil Procedure Rules, exceeded the Chief Justice’s delegated authority under Section 50(2)(b) of the Act and Article 94(6) of the Constitution. The Act explicitly limited execution methods to Sections 37, 39, and 40, which did not include civil jail. The court declared Rule 25(1) unconstitutional for breaching Article 24(2)(a)-(c) (limitations on liberty) and exceeding the Act’s scope.
• The court analyzed Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act and Rule 5(3) of the Rules. The Petitioner argued the Court had jurisdiction, while Interested Parties claimed such claims require factual hearings and expert evidence, violating Article 50(1) (fair hearing). The court held that personal injury claims in RTAs were not contemplated under the Act’s simplified procedures and lacked the flexibility of traditional courts. A declaration was issued excluding such claims from the Court’s jurisdiction.
• The court considered whether it could exercise both constitutional interpretation (Article 165(3)(d)) and appellate jurisdiction (Article 165(3)(e)) simultaneously in consolidated proceedings. The 2nd Respondent argued that the Chief Justice had not empaneled the bench for Petition E010 of 2024, and that combining jurisdictions would create procedural conflicts. The court found that the bench had jurisdiction over the constitutional petition (E008 of 2024) as it had been empaneled by the Chief Justice, and that the appellate matters (CA Nos. E082-E088) were not before the bench for determination but served as evidence. The objection to jurisdiction was dismissed.

Holdings

• Pending personal injury claims arising from RTA in Small Claims Courts nationwide were deemed transferred to the Magistrates Courts. This order prevents prejudice to litigants who filed such claims before the jurisdictional issue was resolved, aligning with Article 48 of the Constitution (access to justice).
• The court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction over the consolidated petition, finding that the Chief Justice had empaneled the bench to hear Petition No. E010 of 2024 after the objection was raised. The court clarified it was exercising its original jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(d) of the Constitution and not appellate jurisdiction, thereby avoiding procedural conflicts.
• The court declared Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules unconstitutional. The rule, which permits committal to civil jail via incorporation of the Civil Procedure Rules, exceeds the delegated authority under Section 50(2)(b) of the Act and Article 94(6) of the Constitution. It violates Article 24(2) of the Constitution by failing to meet reasonable and justifiable limitations on the right to liberty.
• The court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents (RTA). It concluded that such claims were never contemplated under Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, as they require complex procedures (e.g., second medical exams, cross-examinations) incompatible with the Act's streamlined, informal framework.
• The court declined the claim for damages in Petition No. E010 of 2024, noting insufficient evidence to determine whether the Petitioner's arrest and incarceration were unlawful. It emphasized that committal to jail requires proof of ability to pay and wilful default, which were not established in the proceedings before it.

Remedies

• Each party to bear their own costs as this is a public interest litigation.
• All pending cases for personal injuries from road traffic accidents in the Small Claims Court are transferred to the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction.
• Rule 25 of the Small Claims Court Rules is unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Act as read with Article 94(6) of the Constitution.
• The claim for damages in Petition No. E010 of 2024 is declined.
• Claims for personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents are excluded from the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act.
• Sections 34 and 38 of the Small Claims Court Act and Rules 18 and 23(3) are not in violation of Article 50(1) of the Constitution.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation to analyze Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act, emphasizing the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. The Literal Rule was used to determine the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court over personal injury claims, as the legislative intent was discerned directly from the text.
• The Mischief Rule was referenced to assess the legislative remedy for disputes in the Small Claims Court context. The court examined the 'mischief' the Act aimed to address—specifically, the need for streamlined procedures for small claims—and found that personal injury claims involving road traffic accidents fell outside this scope due to their complexity.
• The Purposive Approach was employed to reconcile the statutory text with the legislative intent behind the Small Claims Court Act. The court considered the Act's purpose of providing accessible, fast, and cost-effective resolution for small-value disputes, concluding that complex personal injury claims from road traffic accidents were not contemplated by the legislature.
• The court conducted judicial review to determine whether Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules was ultra vires the parent Act. It concluded that the rule exceeded the delegated authority under Section 50(2)(b) of the Act and Article 94(6) of the Constitution by incorporating provisions for civil jail as a mode of execution, which were not explicitly authorized by the legislature.
• The Rule of Law was invoked to assess the constitutionality of Rule 25(1). The court held that the incorporation of civil jail as a penalty for unpaid debts violated the constitutional right to liberty under Article 29 and Article 11 of the ICCPR, as it allowed incarceration based on inability to fulfill a contractual obligation without meeting the stringent requirements of wilful default.
• Principles of natural justice were central to the court's analysis of procedural fairness in personal injury claims. The court emphasized the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution, noting that claims requiring proof of negligence and expert evidence must adhere to due process standards, which the Small Claims Court's streamlined procedures failed to meet in this context.

Precedent Name

• Dharmagna Patel & Anor vs T.A (a minor)
• Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance
• Katiba Institute & another v Attorney General & another
• Stephen Mwau Wariari v Dennis Mutwiri Muriuki & another
• Khen Kharis Mburu v Inspector General of Police Service & 3 Others
• Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic (No. 1)
• Gichovi v Kilem
• Charles Lutta Kasamani v Concord Insurance Co Ltd
• County Government of Kiambu Vs The Senate & Others

Cited Statute

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

Judge Name

• EKO OGOLA
• A MABEYA
• R NYAKUNDI

Passage Text

• 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.
• The outcome is that the Petition as consolidated is partially successful. Petition No. 008 of 2024 is without merit and is dismissed while Petition No. 010 of 2024 is partially successful.
• 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.