https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/194

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI** **CLAIM NO. E99994 OF 2025** **PRIMAROSA FLOWERS LIMITED……………………………….CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **HERANY FLORA LIMITED……………………….................RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. I have considered the pleadings, statements and evidence before court. The claimant’s case was that it supplied flowers valued at USD 6,547.40 to the respondent between February 2021 and March 2021 and that despite issuance of invoices, the respondent had failed to pay the purchase price. 2. The respondent disputed liability and contended that it was not the purchaser of the flowers. That it acted merely as an agent or intermediary on behalf of foreign buyers and that any obligation to pay for the supplied flowers rested with those buyers and not with it. The respondent further averred that the foreign buyers raised complaints regarding the quality of the flowers supplied and consequently withheld payment. The respondent also raised a claim for set-off in respect of unpaid agency fees allegedly owed by the claimant. 3. I have considered the pleadings filed by both parties and it is doubtful whether the claim is a straightforward debt recovery claim. The defence raises substantial and contested issues requiring determination, including whether there existed a contract for sale of goods between the claimant and the respondent, whether the respondent was a principal purchaser or merely an agent acting on behalf of disclosed foreign buyers, whether the foreign buyers raised legitimate quality complaints regarding the flowers supplied, whether liability for the unpaid invoices lies with the respondent or with third parties who are not parties to the claim, whether the respondent was entitled to the pleaded set-off and agency fees, and whether an account is required between the parties regarding payments received, remitted and allegedly outstanding. 4. To my mind, determination of the those issues would require the Court to examine the parties’ course of dealing over a number of years, analyse correspondence relating to quality complaints, interrogate shipping and payment documentation, determine the legal effect of the alleged agency relationship, and consider the role and obligations of the aforementioned foreign buyers. 5. I do find that these are not matters capable of summary determination as they raise complex questions of fact and law which require extensive evidentiary interrogation and are therefore unsuitable for resolution within the simplified procedure contemplated under the Small Claims Court Act. 6. I say so noting that 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. 7. Accordingly, though the claim falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, I find that it is unsuitable for determination before the Small Claims Court thus the same is hereby struck out without prejudice to the claimant’s right to institute proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Each party shall bear its own costs. **It is so ordered.** **DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI via CTS this 7th Day of August 2026** **HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH** **RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR**