The High Court in Thika has clarified the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents. This ruling was made in the case of Naomi Wanjiru Irungu v Francis Kimani Karanja H.C Civil Appeal No. E.037 of 2024, overturning a decision from the Ruiru Small Claims Court which had previously held it lacked jurisdiction in such matters.
Background
This was an Appeal arising from the ruling in Ruiru Small Claims Court Civil Case No. E014 of 2023 where the adjudicator held that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents.
The Small Claims Court was established in 2016 as a specialized Court with a duty to dispense justice in civil and commercial disputes that do not exceed Kshs 1,000,000/=. Among other reasons, the Court was established to enable timely disposal of disputes, having disputes resolved in a simple and inexpensive way without insisting on strict rules of procedure and evidence.
Appellant’s Case
In the instant case, the Appellant argued that the claim was within the purview of section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act hence the court could grant general damages as sought. Further, it was her case that a claim for soft tissue injuries can’t exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court no matter the forum the claim is lodged.
Respondent’s Case
The Respondent relied on the case of Ogwari v Hersi Civil Appeal 223 of 2022 where the High Court in Mombasa held the small Claims Court can only cater for specific or quantifiable claims. He urged that where the claim is unquantifiable it ceases to be a small claim but a claim at large. This falls short of the Court’s mandate to handle complex matters where strict proof is necessary.
Court’s Holding
The High Court delved into the jurisdiction question making the much-needed clarification on the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to unquantifiable personal injury claims. The Court noted that section 12(1)(d) of the Act does not specifically outline the type of personal injuries that are included or excluded. Adopting the literal rule of statutory interpretation, the Court noted that it cannot be discerned that the section excludes personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents.
The Appellate Court further interrogated the reasons why the Court was established. These reasons included among others: enhancing the ease of doing business, reducing backlog of cases by having disputes resolved through simple, inexpensive and expeditious ways in line with Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution as read with section 3 of the Small Claims Act.
Based on the foregoing, the High Court held that the Small Claims Court is seized with jurisdiction on claims for compensation for personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents provided that the compensation is within its pecuniary limits of up to Kshs. 1 Million. It was further noted that excluding such claims would defeat access to justice.
Conclusion
This decision has addressed the much-needed clarity on the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in personal injury claims. It is noteworthy that the decision is a departure from the Mombasa High Court decision on the same issue in the case of Ogwari v Hersi Civil Appeal 223 of 2022[2023] KEHC 2011 (KLR) (3 July 2023). These being decisions from Courts of equal status, there is need for clarification from the superior courts on this issue.
This alert is for information purpose only is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you have any questions or need legal advice, please contact us on info@jkkibicho.co.ke.
Contributors:
Caroline Njari– Senior Associate
Audrey Weyusia – Trainee Advocate
