https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/160

Huwaima Medical Assistant (PVT) Limited & another v Magondu (Claim E108685 of 2025) [2026] SCC 160 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 160 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Claim E108685 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 17, 2026 Between Huwaima Medical Assistant (PVT) Limited 1st Claimant Joshua Njuguna Ngacha 2nd Claimant and Vincent Muthee Magondu Respondent Ruling 1.The claimant instituted this claim seeking judgment for the sum of Kshs. 539,593/=, being the Kenya Shillings equivalent of 317,408 Indian Rupees allegedly paid by them to Artemis Hospital in India following the treatment and subsequent demise of one Geoffrey Magondu Muthee. The claimants contend that the respondent accompanied the deceased to India as a caregiver and undertook to settle the outstanding hospital bill thus inducing the claimants to issue a Guarantee of Payment (GOP) to secure release of the deceased's body. 2.The respondent on the other hand denied liability and pleaded that there was no valid contract between him and the claimants, that he never authorized the issuance of the alleged GOP. He further averred that the claimants did not demonstrated how the hospital debt became recoverable by them, and that the cause of action arose in India. He thus denied the jurisdiction of this Court. 3.Before going into the merits of the case, this Court must determine whether the instant dispute is suitable for determination under the summary and expedited procedure contemplated under the Small Claims Court Act. 4.I do note that the amount claimed is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. However, it is important for this Court to satisfy itself that the claim falls within the jurisdiction and mandate of the Small Claims Court. 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. 5.I have considered the pleadings and I do note that the claim is founded upon a medical treatment transaction that occurred in India, involving a foreign medical facility, foreign currency obligations, and an alleged Guarantee of Payment issued by the claimants in favour of the hospital. 6.Indeed, the respondent challenged the legal basis upon which the claimants seek reimbursement noting that he disputed the existence of any enforceable contract between himself and the claimants. He also contended that the claimants did not demonstrate any assignment, subrogation, indemnity, novation, or other legal mechanism through which the alleged hospital debt became recoverable by them. 7.To my mind, for this Court to determine the dispute, it would have to interrogate several substantial questions of law and fact, including whether the respondent personally assumed liability for the patient's medical bills, whether the alleged consent or undertaking created a binding contractual obligation in favour of the claimants, the legal effect and enforceability of the alleged Guarantee of Payment, whether the claimants lawfully acquired a right of recovery after settling the hospital's claim, whether the payments allegedly made to the hospital were in fact made and properly proved, and the proper conversion and computation of the foreign currency claim. 8.In my view, these are not straightforward debt recovery issues as they involve complex questions touching on contractual liability, privity of contract, indemnity, subrogation, foreign transactions, and the legal effect of documents allegedly executed outside the jurisdiction. 9.It is trite that the Small Claims Court was established to facilitate the expeditious resolution of relatively simple civil disputes through an informal and summary process. Where determination of a claim requires extensive inquiry into complex legal relationships and foreign transactions, such a matter ceases to be suitable for disposal within the framework contemplated by the Act. 10.I do recognize that the foreign element in the dispute does not on its own deprive this Court its of jurisdiction, However, I am satisfied that the issues raised by the pleadings require a detailed examination of legal principles and evidentiary matters that are more appropriately addressed in a court exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction. 11.I further note that the parties filed lengthy statements and voluminous documentary evidence which would need proper consideration. Though the matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Act, I do note 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. 12.Despite that 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. 13.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. 14.While the Court recognizes that it possesses jurisdiction, 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. I say so noting that the dispute raises substantial and contested questions regarding contractual liability, privity, indemnity, subrogation, foreign transactions and the legal effect of documents allegedly executed outside the jurisdiction. These issues are not suitable for determination through the summary procedures established under the Small Claims Court Act. 15.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. 16.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. 17.Each party shall bear its own costs.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026HON. GLADYS W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR