https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/58

Lavington Security Limited v National Housing Corporation (Claim E32977 of 2025) [2026] SCC 58 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 58 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Claim E32977 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 3, 2026 Between Lavington Security Limited Claimant and The National Housing Corporation Respondent Ruling 1.The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 6/3/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for Kshs. 319.952.60/=, costs of the suit and interest. It was the claimant’s case that the parties entered into a contract dated 23/6/2022 for provision of security services and the claimant offered those services from 1/7/2022 to 30/6/2024 and was to be paid Kshs. 4,543,2000/= out of which the respondent left a balance of Kshs. 319,952.60/= which remained due despite demands. 2.The respondent filed a response denying the claim. Though it was admitted that the security services were offered, the respondent pleaded that the claimant consistently failed to provide adequate security personell despite reminders and this contributed ti the vandalism of one of the houses at the respondent’s premises. That the costs of the vandalized items was Kshs. 291,480/= while the costs of repair was Kshs. 28,474/= totalling to Kshs.319,954/=. That the contract between the parties provided that the claimant would indemnify the respondent against any losses resulting from burglary, theft or neglect of guards thus the deduction was justified. 3.The claim proceeded under Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act thus the witness statements and documents filed by the parties were produced by consent. The claimant filed submissions dated 15/10/2025 whereas the respondent’s were dated 12/2/2026. I have considered the submissions on record as well as the pleadings and documents before this court. 4.Having considered the record, I do 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. 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.Though the claim was fundamentally for recovery of an alleged contractual debt of Kshs. 319,952.60/=, the defence raised went beyond a mere denial of indebtedness and introduced substantial questions regarding the claimant’s alleged breach of contractual obligations, negligence of its security personnel, liability for a reported incident of vandalism, assessment of loss, and the operation of an indemnity clause contained in the parties’ contract. 6.I further note that the parties filed voluminous documentary evidence including the service agreement, invoices, correspondence, incident reports, assessment reports and other documents relating to the alleged vandalism. Further, the dispute involved many witnesses and expert opinions from persons in the security industry concerning the adequacy of security services rendered, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the extent of the losses allegedly suffered by the respondent. 7.I do find that determination of the issues raised would necessarily require a detailed examination of contested facts, evaluation of expert evidence, interpretation of contractual indemnity provisions, and inquiry into questions of negligence, causation and quantification of damages. Such matters are not amenable to the expeditious and simplified procedures envisioned under the Small Claims Court Act. The dispute involves factual and legal complexity that is inconsistent with the objectives of the Court. 8.The resolution of the issues raised by both parties would necessarily require a detailed evidentiary inquiry, including evaluation of performance and liability, examination of witnesses, and rigorous proof of damages. 9.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. 10.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. 11.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. 12.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. 13.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. 14.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. 15.Each party shall bear its own costs.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR