Court rules small claims court cannot hear road accident injury cases

A three-judge bench has declared that personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents cannot be entertained by the Small Claims Court, citing a lack of jurisdiction over such claims.

In its ruling on Thursday, Justices Alfred Mabeya, Eric Ogola and Reuben Nyakundi directed that all pending personal injury claims before the Small Claims Court be transferred to Magistrates’ Courts with the requisite jurisdiction under the Deemed Transparency Act.

The bench also addressed procedural issues under the Small Claims Court Rules, noting that Rule 25, which provides for arrest and committal to jail under the Tribunal Procedure Act, was found by the court to be inconsistent with Article 24, Sub-Articles 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Small Claims Court Act, as read together with Articles 94 and 96 of the Constitution, were also found by the court to be incompatible with this provision.

Additionally, the court clarified that alleged violations of Sections 34 and 38 of the Act and Rules 18 and 23 of the Small Claims Court Rules do not amount to a contravention of Articles 50 or 1 of the Constitution.

The case had been filed by one James Muriithi Gathaiya, who moved to the High Court seeking clarity on the scope of the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the wording of the Small Claims Court Act and its accompanying rules had been interpreted in a manner that allowed personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents to be filed and determined in that forum.

He contended that this interpretation had resulted in confusion among litigants and practitioners.

In his petition, Gathaiya argued that reliance on the impugned provisions had led to numerous personal injury suits being filed before the Small Claims Court, only for many of them to be struck out on jurisdictional grounds at a later stage.

“The petitioner further avers that acting on these provisions, thousands of suits were filed seeking compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of road traffic accidents that ended up being dismissed based on challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court to handle and determine personal injury claims,” the judgment states.

He maintained that the resulting dismissals caused hardship to claimants, many of whom had already incurred legal costs and faced delays in accessing substantive justice.

However, in a detailed analysis of the legislative history and purpose of the Small Claims Court, the three-judge bench held that Parliament did not intend the court to handle claims involving bodily harm.

The judges observed that the Small Claims Court was designed to offer a simplified, expedited forum for resolving low-value commercial and contractual disputes, rather than complex claims requiring medical evidence, expert testimony and assessment of damages.

While acknowledging that Section 12(1)(d) of the Act could, at first glance, be read broadly, the court held that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the statute and undermine the specialised role of the Magistrates’ Courts in personal injury litigation.

The judges emphasised that questions of liability and quantum in road accident claims demand a level of procedural and evidentiary rigour that the Small Claims Court framework was not designed to accommodate.

To mitigate the impact of its decision, the court issued transitional orders aimed at protecting litigants who had already approached the Small Claims Court in good faith.

It directed that all pending personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents be transferred to the appropriate Magistrates’ Courts and treated as properly filed, thereby preserving parties’ rights and preventing further delay.

On the constitutional challenge, the court declined to award damages and upheld the bulk of the Small Claims Court Act, finding that only specific enforcement-related provisions offended the Constitution.