https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/55

Blackwell Systems Ltd v Topstart Merchants Ltd (Commercial Case E1764 of 2025) [2026] SCC 55 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 55 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E1764 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM June 26, 2026 Between Blackwell Systems Limited Claimant and Topstart Merchants Limited Respondent Ruling 1.I have considered the statement of claim, the response thereto as well as the entire court record. I do note that it was contested that the dispute arose from a contract for provision of transportation services. I do also note that the total sum claimed is within the pecuniary limits set out under Section 12 of the Small Claims Court Act, 2016. As such, the claim is within the pecuniary of this Court and jurisdiction is acknowledged. 2.However, the respondent’s defence raises serious and contested issues of fact and law, including allegations of assault, threats, indiscipline and repudiatory breach, which are said to have justified termination of the contract. The claimant on the other hand asserts wrongful termination and seeks, inter alia, loss of profits, which must be strictly proved. 3.The resolution of the issues raised by both parties would necessarily require a detailed evidentiary inquiry, including evaluation of credibility, examination of witnesses, and rigorous proof of damages. 4.Though this Court is conferred with jurisdiction to adjudicate over disputes relating to breach of contract, it is also trite that the Small Claims Court is a specialized forum established to determine simple, low-value disputes through summary, informal, and expeditious procedures. The scope of the Court’s jurisdiction must therefore be exercised in a manner consistent with these objectives. 5.In considering whether a claim is suitable for adjudication within this framework, the Court must assess not only the subject-matter of the claim but also the nature and complexity of the factual and evidentiary issues necessary for a fair determination. 6.The Court observed that a fair determination of the issues in dispute would require substantial time and a detailed examination of documentary and oral evidence, which is not compatible with the summary procedure and strict timelines governing proceedings in the Small Claims Court. 7.The jurisdiction of this Court is intended for simple, straightforward disputes capable of expeditious disposal. Where a matter requires complex evidentiary analysis and prolonged examination, it ceases to be suitable for determination within this forum. The contested nature of these issues raises substantial concerns regarding whether the summary and informal procedures of the Small Claims Court are sufficient to achieve a just outcome. 8.While the Court recognizes that it possesses jurisdiction in principle, the present dispute is unsuitable for determination within the Small Claims Court due to the nature and complexity of the issues raised. Entertaining the claim here would risk undermining the efficiency, proportionality, and procedural simplicity that the Court is designed to uphold. 9.Accordingly, and in the interests of justice, the Court deems the claim to be unfit to be heard and determined in the Small Claims Court and the claimant is at liberty to pursue the same before a court of competent jurisdiction that is also better equipped to resolve the issues raised. 10.In the end, the claim is hereby struck out without prejudice to the claimant’s right to institute proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction. 11.Each party shall bear its own costs.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR