https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/62

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT MILIMANI** **SCCOMM/E108715 OF 2025** **RADEL LIMITED…………………...…..........................................CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **ELDON VILLAS LIMITED……………………..................1ST RESPONDENT** **RISING TIDE HOSPITALITY** **MANAGEMENT LIMITED………………………………2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. I have considered the statement of claim, the response thereto as well as the entire court record. The dispute arises from an alleged contract for provision of security services at the respondents’ premises whereby the claimant claimed for Kshs. 908,640/= comprising of balances for the services, recruitment and training costs, loss and continued use of company property. The claimant also claimed for damages arising from an alleged breach of a non-solicitation clause contained in a contract. 2. The respondents opposed the claim and raised several objections. The 1st respondent denied being a party to the contract and also challenged the validity of the agreement on grounds of lack of authority and execution. It contended that the contract had expired by effluxion of time, and further asserted that the dispute was subject to an arbitration clause. 3. 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. 4. Having considered the record, I do note that the dispute extends beyond a simple claim for a liquidated sum. Whereas part of the claim relates to alleged unpaid service fees, a substantial part of the claim comprises of damages for breach of a non-solicitation clause, operational disruption, recruitment and training costs, loss of business, and continued use of company property. 5. Further, there are disputes relating to the identity of the contracting parties, privity of contract, validity of execution of the agreement, authority of the alleged signatory, and the legal effect of the alleged expiry of the contract. These are complex questions of both fact and law which would require extensive interrogation of contractual documents and corporate records. 6. The resolution of the issues raised by both parties would necessarily require a detailed evidentiary inquiry, including evaluation of credibility, examination of witnesses, and rigorous proof of damages. 7. 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. 8. Though the matter proceeded under Section 30of 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Each party shall bear its own costs. **It is so ordered.** **DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI via CTS this 3rd Day of July 2026** **** **HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH** **RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR**