STATUTORY TIMELINE FOR THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT

This article examines the jurisdictional dilemma posed by the conflicting decisions from the High Court on the jurisdictional timelines of the Small Claims Court and possible reforms. Is the sixty-day timeline aspirational, directional, or is it jurisdictional and binding?

a. Introduction

The Small Claims Court Act, 2016 (as revised in 2022) was enacted to enhance access to justice through timely, affordable, and fair resolution of minor civil and commercial disputes. The Court is designed to determine matters whose value does not exceed one million Kenya shillings, within a strict statutory period of sixty days from the date of filing.

The rationale behind this framework was to promote efficiency, reduce litigation costs, and support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by ensuring the swift resolution of commercial disputes. However, recent jurisprudence has brought a pressing legal question: What happens when a judgment is delivered outside the sixty-day statutory timeline?

b. The Jurisdictional Timeline: Aspirational or Mandatory?

Section 34 (1) of the Small Claims Court Act requires that all claims should be determined within sixty days. The provision is expressed in mandatory language, seemingly leaving no room for discretion. Yet, judicial interpretation has not been consistent.

Some High Court decisions, particularly Biosystems Consultants v. Nyali Links Arcade [2023] KEHC 21068, Lumumba v. Rift Gas Limited [2023] KEHC 25998 (KLR), relying on Crown Beverages Limited v. MFI Document Solutions Limited [2022] KEHC 58 (KLR), have viewed the sixty-day limit as directory or aspirational, arguing that the absence of explicit penal consequences for non-compliance suggests that Parliament did not intend for the timeline to invalidate judgments delivered beyond it. This approach prioritises substantive justice over procedural rigidity, emphasising that delays, especially administrative ones, should not vitiate an otherwise sound decision.

Conversely, the recent decision by Justice Musyoka in Muiruri v. Mkalama [2025] KEHC 10689 (KLR) now interprets the sixty-day period as jurisdictional and mandatory. Under this view, the Small Claims Court loses jurisdiction once the statutory period lapses, and any judgment delivered thereafter is null and void. As a proponent of this interpretation, he asserts that this strict adherence preserves the legislative intent and integrity of the Court as a fast, efficient dispute resolution forum. The courts giving leeway to judgements delivered out of the statutory timeline rely on the civil procedure rules specifically order 21 rule 1 of the rules which is a subsidiary legislation having total disregard for the act establishing the Small Claims Court itself.

c. A Jurisdictional Dilemma

The result is a clear judicial divide, leaving practitioners and litigants in a difficult position. Both schools of thought emanate from courts of equal status, meaning that there is currently no binding precedent to settle the matter definitively.

The practical implications are significant. If the sixty-day limit is deemed jurisdictional, a party could lose an otherwise meritorious judgment simply because the Court delayed its own decision. On the other hand, treating the timeline as merely aspirational risks undermining the very purpose for which the Court was created, speedy, cost-effective justice.

The dilemma is further aggravated by the fact that decisions from the Small Claims Court cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal. With the High Court serving as the final appellate body, the inconsistency among judges leaves the law unsettled and the litigants exposed to unpredictability.

d. The Need for Reform

This uncertainty calls for deliberate intervention. Alternatively, the Judiciary could issue practice directions to ensure uniform application of the timeline. Such directions could require that cases approaching the sixty-day mark be prioritised, or provide clear guidance on remedies when delays occur through no fault of the parties.

Without such clarity, practitioners must continue to navigate a system where the outcome may hinge on which interpretive philosophy a particular judge subscribes to, a situation which undermines predictability and confidence in the judicial process.

e. Conclusion

The debate over the sixty-day statutory timeline goes to the very essence of what the Small Claims Court was intended to be. It was never meant to replicate the procedural technicalities of the higher courts, but to stand as a swift, accessible, and efficient avenue for justice. As Justice Musyoka aptly observed, the real challenge lies not in the Court’s design, but in the failure to appreciate its unique purpose and the inclination to model it after the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts. Preserving the distinct identity of the Small Claims Court requires strict adherence to its timelines and operational simplicity.

Ultimately, the question practitioners and policymakers must confront is this: Should efficiency yield to procedural flexibility, or must the law draw a hard line to protect the integrity of the Small Claims framework?

Written by Michael Muchomba and Paul Nyaosi

Please note that this is not legal advice and is intended primarily for information purposes. If you require tailored advice or further information, please contact us on info@mckayadvocates.com.