https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/42

Kuria v Manundu & another (Civil Case E066 of 2025) [2026] SCC 42 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 42 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Civil Case E066 of 2025 GK Waithira, J June 26, 2026 Between Lucy Nduku Kuria Claimant and Felix Manundu 1st Respondent Jane Mueni 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling determines the claimant’s preliminary objection raised on 11th February 2026 challenging the jurisdiction of this court to handle the instant suit. In a nutshell, the claimant’s case against the respondents was for inter alia general damages and special damages. She averred that on 30th October 2024 at about 9:45 a.m., the respondents attacked her at their residential compound in Old Donholm estate, causing her to loss and sustain injuries for which she sought compensation. 2.It is important to note that the respondent had raised a similar preliminary objection against the jurisdiction of this court to handle the matter on 17th January 2025 and this court dismissed the objection. In its decision delivered on 5th June 2025, this court held as follows;“ 7.The scope of the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction is provided under section 12 of the Small Claims Court Act which provides;Subject to this Act, the Rules and any other law, the Court has jurisdiction to determine any civil claim relating to—a contract for sale and supply of goods or services;a contract relating to money held and received;liability in tort in respect of loss or damage caused to any property or for the delivery or recovery of movable property;compensation for personal injuries; and set-off and counterclaim under any contract. [Emphasis added] 8.In the present case, the claimant has sued the respondents for damages after she was allegedly attacked and injured by the respondents. 9.Her cause of action is based on what is legally defined as a tort of trespass to person. In the case of HWK v Rachel N. Kang’ethe & Karen Hospital Nairobi [2019] KEHC 1753 (KLR) the court held;“The tort of trespass to a person is a wrong committed against the personal security or personal liberty of one man by another. There are three varieties of trespass to person namely assault, battery and wrong imprisonment.” 10.In its determination of the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction, the court in Ogwari v Hersi (Civil Appeal 223 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 2011 (KLR) (3 July 2023) (Judgment) held that claims for personal injury due to assault and allied causes can still be filed in the Small Claims Court. 11.The court in Jane v Runga (Civil Appeal E034 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 11036 (KLR) (18 September 2024) (Judgment) similarly found that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine personal injury claims. 12.While it would have been ideal for the criminal matter to be heard and determined first, the institution of criminal proceedings does not bar a civil court from simultaneously hearing a matter arising out of similar facts. (Maina & 4 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others (Constitutional Petition E106 & 160 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 15 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (27 January 2022) (Judgment) 13.Accordingly, the preliminary objection based on the court’s jurisdiction is dismissed.” 3.The position of this court on its jurisdiction to handle personal injury claims for assault has neither changed nor was it overturned on appeal. This court therefore reiterates its above finding that it has jurisdiction to handle personal injury claims arising out of an assault. 4.The claimant’s learned counsel in his submissions on the issue, referred this court to the land mark decision in Gathaiya vs AG and 2 others; and 176 interested parties (Petition E008 of 2024) (consolidated) (2026) KEHC 290 (KLR) (22nd January 2026) (Judgement) and asserted that the court’s finding in that matter, that the Small Claim Court was unsuited to handle personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents applied in a similar manner to personal injuries claims arising out of an assault. 5.The present suit is however distinguishable from the case of Gathaiya vs AG (supra) as the cause of action in the present case did not arise from a road traffic accident but from an alleged assault. An insurer’s right to have a claimant re-examined and to verify the information provided by the claimant as provided under Section 3A and 3B of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, 2013, was central to the decision of the court in the case of Gathaiya vs AG (supra). The provisions of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, 2013 have no bearing in the determination of the present suit. It would however be prudent for a claimant to adhere to Rule 12 (5) (3) of the Small Claims Court Rules which provides thus;“A person claiming compensation for personal injuries pursuant to section 12(1)(d) of the Act shall attach to the Statement of Claim—(a)a medical report from a licenced medical practitioner; and(b)any receipts in respect of medical expenses incurred on treatment.” 6.The claimant in the present suit did not attach a medical report or receipts to her claim. She only became aware of this omission during the hearing of the matter. Although the court granted the claimant leave to file additional documents, she failed to take advantage of that opportunity. Her conduct thereafter suggest that she has since lost interest in pursuing the claim. This is illustrated by the fact that whereas she had vigorously opposed the respondent’s preliminary objection raised on 17th January 2025 challenging this court’s jurisdiction to determine the personal injury claim arising from the alleged assault, she subsequently sought, quite inconsistently, to challenge this court’s jurisdiction on the very grounds she had earlier resisted. 7.This court takes note that the instant suit was filed on 13th November 2024. The suit has not been heard to conclusion or determined close to two years later. In other circumstances, this court would have been inclined to sustain the suit in the interest of justice, considering the time and resources already expended by the court and the parties. The decision of the court in the Biosystems Consultants v Nyali Links Arcade (Civil Appeal E185 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 21068 (KLR) (31 July 2023) (Ruling) would be instructive in this regard. In that elaborate decision, Majanja J. held as follows on the timelines of the Small Claim Court;“ 56.The purpose of the Small Claims Court Act is to facilitate expeditious disposal of the disputes while at the same time respecting the right to be heard. The net result is that balancing the two may result at times to overshooting the 60 days. The 60 days do not have penal consequences for good reason. They are aspirational. This is part of having access to justice over amounts that need not be in the normal system. Allowing the application will open floodgates that will eventually defeat the purpose of the Act. 57.It is my take that the non- compliance goes to the court’s performance and is answerable internally. It cannot affect parties who are in court and ready to be heard. I have seen defendants use various gimmicks to have matters adjourned and thereafter turn around to say, 60 days are over. The parties have wasted a full month arguing in this court and with preliminary objections that are much ado about nothing.” 8.In the present case, the scale leans heavily in favour of striking out the suit. This is not because the court lacks jurisdiction but because the overriding objective of the Small Claims Court, which is facilitating the expeditious disposal of disputes cannot be achieved. Moreover, it would be futile to continue hearing a matter where the claimant’s conduct demonstrates a reluctance to have the matter determined expeditiously. 9.Consequently, this suit is struck out with costs to the respondents which are assessed at a minimal fee of Kshs. 10,000/=. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON. GRACE WAITHĨRASENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORRuling Sent Via Cts Platform In Accordance With Rule 23 (4) (b) Of The Small Claims Court Rules.Any Aggrieved Party Has Leave To Exercise Their Right Of Appeal Within 30 Days Of The Date Hereof.