https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7121

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL APPELLATE DIVISION** **HCCSCA NO. E127 OF 2025** **MAXICHEM VENTURES LIMITED….………….….….APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **LUSAM COLLECTIONS LIMITED…………………..RESPONDENT** *(Being an Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. K. Ireri (Adjudicator/RM) in Nairobi Milimani SCCC No. E3229 of 2024 delivered on 13/6/2025)* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Respondent was the Claimant in Nairobi Milimani SCCC No. E3229 of 2024 vide Statement of Claim dated 8/3/2024 seeking a sum of Ksh. 453,560/= together with interest at Commercial rate from 25/8/2023 until payment in full for uniforms the Respondent made for the Appellant. 2. The Appellant filed a response dated 16/4/2024 denying the claim. 3. The case proceeded by way of written submissions. 4. The Respondent provided a delivery note showing a number of uniforms delivered and photographs showing people wearing the uniforms and argued that the people were the appellant’s staff. The Appellant alleged that the said documents were fictitious. 5. The trial Court held that the Appellant was estopped from denying that he had ordered for uniforms for his staff. 6. The trial Court found that the Respondent had proved its case to the required standard and entered judgment in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent. 7. The trial Court awarded costs of Ksh. 35,000/=. 8. The Appellant has appealed against the said Judgment on the following grounds:- 9. ***The learned Adjudicator erred in law in finding that the Appellant was estopped from denying existence of an order for delivery of uniforms despite failure by the Respondent to establish the elements of estoppel.*** 10. ***The learned Adjudicator erred in law in finding that a mere signature by an unknown person is evidence of acceptance of delivery.*** 11. ***The learned Adjudicator erred in law in finding that the photographic images of unknown persons was sufficient proof of acceptance of delivery despite the photographs having been disputed.*** 12. ***The learned Adjudicator erred in law awarding the Respondent Ksh. 435,500.00 which are in the nature of special damages without strict proof of how the amount was arrived at.*** 13. The parties filed written submissions as follows: The appellant, Maxichem Ventures Limited, submitted that it seeks to set aside a judgment delivered on 13th June 2025 by the Milimani Small Claims Court in favour of Lusam Collections Limited. 14. The primary ground is that the trial court acted without jurisdiction because its judgment was delivered more than sixty days after the claim was filed on 8th March 2024, contrary to Section 34 of the Small Claims Court Act, which mandates final determination within sixty days. 15. The appellant cites several High Court decisions, including Makanda v Osita, Mboga v Excellent Business Services Limited, and Muiruri v Mkalama, where it was held that once the sixty‑day period lapses, the court loses jurisdiction and any subsequent judgment is a nullity. 16. The appellant argues that the delay of over a year stripped the trial court of its statutory mandate. 17. The appellant contends that the adjudicator erred in applying estoppel, as the respondent failed to prove any clear representation, reliance, or detriment. 18. The delivery note relied upon was signed by an unknown person, bore no company stamp, and its signatory was never called to authenticate the signature or authority, violating Sections 76 and 107 of the Evidence Act. 19. The photographs of unknown persons wearing uniforms were disputed and not linked to the appellant’s employees. The award of Kshs 435,500.00 as special damages lacked strict proof, as no purchase agreement or quotation was produced. 20. The appellant further argues that parties agreed to rely on documents without viva voce evidence, but that did not amount to admission of the documents’ veracity; without proper proof of authorship, the documents remain hearsay. 21. Consequently, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and the suit dismissed with costs. 22. The respondent’s submissions opposed the appeal filed by Maxichem Ventures Limited. 23. The respondent argued that a valid contract existed between the parties, whereby the appellant requested the respondent to design, tailor, and fit staff uniforms for its restaurant, Westy’s Lounge, at an agreed cost of Kshs. 453,560 inclusive of VAT. 24. The respondent delivered the uniforms on 24th August 2023, evidenced by a delivery note signed by the appellant’s employee, who also wrote his full name. 25. An invoice was issued the following day, but the appellant has not paid. 26. The respondent points out that although the appellant denied any agreement in its statement of response, it did not dispute that the persons photographed wearing the uniforms at the restaurant’s launch were its employees, nor did it explain how they came to wear those uniforms. 27. The appellant also did not disown the employee who signed the delivery note or provide evidence that the signature was forged. 28. On the issue of estoppel, the respondent submitted that the appellant is estopped from denying the contract under Section 120 of the Evidence Act, because its actions led the respondent to believe the contract was valid and to act upon that belief. 29. Regarding the appellant’s argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction by delivering judgment more than sixty days after the claim was filed, the respondent relies on the case of **Biosystems Consultants vs Nyali Links Arcade**, where the High Court held that the sixty-day period under Section 34 of the Small Claims Court Act is aspirational, not mandatory, and that procedural technicalities should not override natural justice and Article 159(2) of the Constitution. 30. The respondent contends that any delay was caused by the adjudicator’s illness, not by either party, and that it would be unfair and unconstitutional to deny the respondent the fruits of its judgment on purely procedural grounds. 31. The respondent therefore urges the court to dismiss the appeal with costs. 32. This being an appeal from the small claims court, the same is only allowed on points of law. 33. The issues for determination before this court are as follows; 34. ***Whether the Small Claims Court lost jurisdiction and rendered its judgment a nullity by failing to hear and determine the matter within the mandatory 60-day statutory timeline.*** 35. ***Whether the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of estoppel.*** 36. ***Whether the trial court erred in awarding the claimed amount of special damages without strict proof.*** 37. On the jurisdictional question, the appellant relies on Section 34 of the Small Claims Court Act, which mandates that all proceedings before the court shall be heard and determined within sixty days. 38. The appellant cites the strict interpretation of this timeline found in decisions such as **Muiruri v Mkalama [2023] KEHC 18569 (KLR)**, where the court held that the sixty-day period is a mandatory jurisdictional limit. 39. However, in my opinion Section 34 is not a mandatory provision. Striking down a judgment solely because of a delay, especially one caused by the court's own administrative hurdles or the adjudicator’s health, would violate Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which commands that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. 40. To declare the judgment a nullity would punish the parties for the court’s internal delays, which is contrary to the interests of justice and the right to a fair hearing. 41. Consequently, I find that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction, and the judgment is not a nullity. 42. Regarding the merits of the evidence, the appellant disputes the findings of estoppel and the sufficiency of the delivery note. 43. Under Section 120 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80), estoppel arises when one person has, by declaration, act, or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief. 44. In this case, the respondent produced photographs of individuals wearing the uniforms at the appellant’s business premises. As noted in **Liaison Group (I.B) Ltd v Skytrain Limited [2022] KEHC 13175 (KLR),** where a party remains silent or allows a service to be rendered to its benefit without objection, they cannot later deny the existence of a contract. 45. The appellant’s failure to explain how its staff came to be in possession of and wearing the respondent’s uniforms creates a strong inference of a contractual relationship. 46. Furthermore, while the appellant attacked the delivery note as being signed by an "unknown person," the burden of proof shifted to the appellant under Section 107 of the Evidence Act to demonstrate that the signatory was not its employee, particularly since the uniforms were clearly being used in the appellant's course of business. 47. On the issue of special damages, it is a settled principle of Kenyan law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. 48. However, in the context of the Small Claims Court, Section 32 of the Act allows the court to admit evidence that might not be admissible in other courts and to determine matters with a degree of informality. 49. The invoice and delivery note provided by the respondent, coupled with the undisputed evidence of the uniforms being worn at the "Westy’s Lounge" launch, constitute sufficient proof of the value of the goods supplied. 50. Where there is evidence of work done and a corresponding invoice that remains unchallenged by a counter-valuation, the court is entitled to award the sum claimed. 51. The appellant did not provide any evidence to suggest the uniforms were worth less or that they had not been received. 52. Therefore, the learned adjudicator did not err in finding that the respondent had proved its case on a balance of probabilities. 53. The appeal is hereby dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court is upheld. 54. Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal. **Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 22nd day of May, 2026.** 1. **N. ONGERI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Mr Kiplangat for the Appellant No appearance for the Respondent Chrispine – Court Assistant