The jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court (SCC) has faced contest severally. A recent trial to the jurisdiction of the court being Eldoret Constitutional Petition E008 (James Muriithi Gathaiya versus Attorney General & Others [Interested Parties]) of 2024 (‘The Petition’). The Petitioner was a claimant in a pending suit before the Small Claims Court at Eldoret in which he claimed compensation for personal injuries arising from a road traffic accident. The court consolidated two petitions which primarily sought the court for a declaration that the small claims court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents. The court also invited parties with pending appeals from the small claims court to participate in the petition as interested parties.
The interested parties argued that the court has no jurisdiction to specifically determine personal injury claims in road traffic accidents as doing so violates their constitutional rights on fair hearing. Specifically, they argued that cases involving road traffic accidents require detailed medical assessments, proof of negligence and compliance with the provisions of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Part Risks) Act. The court agreed with the interested parties and found that such cases cannot be effectively determined in the small claims court.
Having come to this conclusion, the court directed that all cases pending before the small claims court for claims for personal injuries arising out of toad traffic accidents be transferred to the Magistrates court with jurisdiction.
The court’s decision was a pragmatic approach concerned primarily with the ability of the small claims court to effectively determine a case involving a road traffic accident. However, the root cause of the shortcomings of the jurisdiction of the small claims court arise from the legislation creating the court. While the finding by the court has provided a solution for this particular issue, it is a function of parliament to anticipate where the provisions of a proposed law are likely to be incompatible with existing laws to avoid such cases.
The effect of the court’s decision is that persons with claims of personal injury arising from road traffic accidents who anticipated that their cases would be resolved expeditiously before the small claims court are now subject to averagely longer timelines before the magistrate courts. Further, the magistrate court are now faced with increased case backlog from the transfer of cases from the small claims court.
