https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/141

Riley Falcon Security Services Ltd v Owich t/a Deal Homes Apartment - Ukunda (Commercial Case E276 of 2026) [2026] SCC 141 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 141 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E276 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM June 5, 2026 Between Riley Falcon Security Services Limited Claimant and Paul Otieno Owich t/a Deal Homes Apartment - Ukunda Respondent Judgment 1.By a statement of claim dated 19th February, 2026 the claimant sued the respondent seeking for the following orders: a) Judgement against the respondent for a sum of Kshs. 90,682.39/=; b) Interests on (a) above; c) Costs of the suit. Brief facts are that the claimant is a limited company that provides radio alarm services to its clients across the country. On 21st November 2020, the claimant and the respondent executed a radio alarm system agreement. According to clause 6 of the aforesaid agreement, the respondent was supposed to pay the claimant a monthly monitoring and maintenance charge of Kshs. 5,700/= inclusive of VAT. The respondent defaulted in paying the monthly monitoring and maintenance charges as was agreed. At the time of filing the claim, the Respondent had an outstanding monthly monitoring and maintenance charge arrears of Kshs. 90,682.39/=. 2.The Respondent has never entered appearance or filed a response to the claim. 3.Having perused the pleadings and the evidence on record, the issues for determination are as follows:a)Whether there existed a valid contract between the parties;b)Whether the claim is within the local limits of the court. Whether there existed a valid contract between the parties 4.The Claimant produced copies of a radio alarm system agreement executed by both parties on 21st November 2020. It is well established that the essential elements of a valid contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration. This position was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Charles Mwirigi Miriti v Thananga Tea Growers Sacco Ltd & another [2014] KECA 538 (KLR). 5.Applying the above principle, and upon careful examination of the documents produced, this Court finds that the radio alarm system agreement satisfies the elements of a valid loan agreement between the parties. Whether the claim is within the local limits of the court 6.The Court of Appeal in the case of Phoenix of E.A Assurance Co. Ltd Vs S.M Thiga t/a Newspaper services {2019} eKLR expressed itself thus on jurisdiction:“…Jurisdiction is primordial in every suit. It has to be there when the suit is filed in the first place. If a suit is filed without jurisdiction, the only remedy is to withdraw it and file a compliant one in the court seized of jurisdiction. A suit filed devoid of jurisdiction is dead on arrival and cannot be remedied. Without jurisdiction, the Court cannot confer jurisdiction to itself. The subordinate court could not therefore entertain the suit and allow only that part of the claim that was within its pecuniary jurisdiction.” 7.Presently, according to the Statement of Claim, the Claimant’s physical address and place of conducting business is Nairobi Kenya. Section 11 of the SCCA provides that the Chief Justice shall, by notice in the Gazette, designate the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. 8.By dint of Gazette Notice No. 3791 of 2021, the Acting Chief Justice established the Small Claims Court at Milimani Commercial Courts to exercise jurisdiction within Nairobi County only, with effect from 27th April 2021. Similarly, this Court was established to exercise jurisdiction within Mombasa County only. 9.Section 15 of the SCCA provides that a party may lodge a claim in a court within whose local limits:a.The person ordinarily resides or carries on business;b.The subject matter of the claim is situated;c.The contract was made or was to be performed;d.The cause of action arose; ore.The Respondent resides. 10.Having established that there existed a valid agreement, the Claimant was under a duty to demonstrate that either of the aforesaid conditions falls within Mombasa County. The documents produced by the Claimant demonstrate that the agreement was executed in Nairobi County. Additionally, the subject matter arose in Kwale County as that is where the Respondent’s apartments are situated. These facts therefore remove the claim from the jurisdiction of this court. 11.Rule 34 of the Small Claims Court Rules empowers this Court, upon application by a party and for sufficient cause shown, to transfer proceedings where a claim has been filed outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. However, this court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Chief Justice has not yet established a designated Small Claims Court station in Kwale County. Further, this Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kwale Law Courts, as such power is reserved for the High Court. Consequently, the Statement of Claim dated 26th November 2025 is hereby struck out for want of territorial jurisdiction with no orders as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT THIKA THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;Mr. Iddi h/b for Mr. Tolo……. for Claimant;N/A… for RespondentC/A Esther