Gichia t/a Kirasykie General Supplies and Services v Githinji - Chairman & 2 others (Commercial Case E518 of 2026) [2026] SCC 137 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling)

Gichia t/a Kirasykie General Supplies and Services v Githinji - Chairman & 2 others (Commercial Case E518 of 2026) [2026] SCC 137 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 137 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E518 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM July 2, 2026 Between Anthony Mwaura Gichia t/a Kirasykie General Supplies and Services Claimant and Daniel Githinji - Chairman 1st Respondent Daniel Chepkonga - Hon Secretary & another & another 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to a Preliminary Objection filed by the Respondent dated 19th June 2026 where in the Respondent submits that the suit offends the provisions of Section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act Cap. 10A, Laws of Kenya which provides for prohibition of division of claims to the effect that no claim shall be divided or pursued in parts for the sole purpose of bringing the sum claimed in each of such proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2.The Claimant submits that in a demand letter dated 19/5/2026 they demanded payment of Kshs. 719,565 from the Respondent who failed to respond to the demand letter in any way leading to the institution of this case. The demand letter is listed in the Claimant's List of Documents dated 29th May 2026. The Claimant is not aware of any other demand letter. The Claimant's case is stated in the Statement of Claim, List of Documents and his Statement dated 19th May 2026. Further, that the determinant factor under Section 14 of the Small Claims Act is 'in each such proceedings' meaning there are several cases already before the court regarding the same transaction and parties. In the instant claim, this is the only proceeding between the Claimant and the Respondent. Analysis and Determination 3.The Supreme Court in the case of Hassan Ali Joho & Another v. Suleiman Said Shahbal & 2 Others, Petition No. 10 of 2013, [2014] eKLR endorsed the principles set out in the Mukisa Biscuit case regarding preliminary objection defining them as those that consist of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. 4.The instant Preliminary Objection as filed fits within the definition in the Mukisa Biscuits case as what is contended is the jurisdiction of the court to determine the suit. I will thus proceed to determine the same, considering the pleadings and submissions as filed by the Claimant herein. 5.I have considered the record herein and indeed the only issue for determination is whether this claim as filed offends Section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act. It is trite law that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which any judicial authority rests. This principle has been firmly established in a long line of authorities, most notably in the celebrated decision of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, which stands as the locus classicus on the question of jurisdiction. 6.Section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act on Prohibition on division of claims provides that; no claim shall be divided or pursued in parts for the sole purpose of bringing the sum claimed in each of such proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court. 7.Rule 3(4-6) of the Act provides as follows;4.A claimant who has a claim of more than one million shillings may abandon that part of the claim that is in excess of two hundred thousand shillings. Where a claimant abandons part of a claim, he or she shall state in the Statement of Claim that the amount in excess of one million shillings has been abandoned.6.A claimant who abandons part of a claim shall not subsequently sue for recovery of that part of the claim that has been abandoned, unless the claimant withdraws the entire claim in accordance with rule 14 (1) (c) and subsequently pursues the entire claim in a Magistrates Court 8.It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and courts must restrict themselves to what has been pleaded. The Statement of Claim dated 29th May 2026 seeks judgment for Kshs. 719,565/- being payment for the supply of foodstuff to the Respondent. The Claimant has further filed a demand letter corroborating the said amount and has disavowed the demand letters dated 23rd June 2026 and 18th June 2026. The Respondent has not filed any response to the claim. 9.Having gone through the Claimant’s pleadings this court finds that the claim does not offend section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act as the amount sought is within this court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. Additionally, the Respondent has not placed before this court evidence of the existence of any other matter filed by the Claimant arising from the same course of action as the one herein for this court to be satisfied that the Claimant has indeed split its alleged claim of Kshs. 2,326,460/- as required under section 14 of the Act. 10.Additionally, by virtue of Rule 3, the Claimant shall not subsequently sue for recovery of that part of the claim that has been abandoned, unless the claimant withdraws the entire claim in accordance with rule 14 (1) (c) and subsequently pursues the entire claim in a Magistrates Court 11.Consequently, the Preliminary Objection dated 11th June 2026 is dismissed. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……2ND …. DAYOF………JULY………2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;…Ms. Okumu……for Claimant;……Mr. Mathare…… for Respondent C/A Esther