On the 22^nd of January 2026, a three-judge bench of the High Court sitting at Eldoret delivered a decision that has reconfigured the architecture of civil justice. In the consolidated petitions James Muriithi Gathaiya v Attorney General & Others (Petition No. E008 of 2024) and Reuben Oyamo Odoyo v Attorney General & Others (Petition No. E010 of 2024), the Court held that the Small Claims Court (SCC) lacks jurisdiction to hear personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents (RTAs).

In the same ruling, the Court declared Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules unconstitutional, thereby abolishing the use of civil jail as a mode of judgment execution within the SCC framework. The decision has since triggered intense debate within legal circles, exposed fault lines in access to justice, and forced an immediate rethinking of how low-value personal injury claims should be processed in courts.

Background

The Small Claims Court (SCC) was established under the Small Claims Court Act, 2016 as part of a broader judicial reform agenda aimed at enhancing access to justice. Its mandate is deliberately narrow: to determine claims not exceeding One million Kenya Shillings through simplified procedures, minimal formality, and strict timelines culminating in a judgment within sixty days of filing.

Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Act expressly includes “compensation for personal injuries” among the matters falling within the Court’s jurisdiction. On a literal reading, this provision appeared to accommodate personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents, provided they met the pecuniary threshold.

Early judicial interpretation supported this position. In Naomi Wanjiru Irungu v Francis Kimani Karanja (HCCA No. E037 of 2024), the High Court at Thika overturned a decision of the Ruiru SCC and affirmed that RTA personal injury claims were properly within the SCC’s remit. In the case of Ogwari v Hersi (Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2022), the High Court at Mombasa held that the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is confined to specific and readily quantifiable claims. The Court reasoned that once a claim is unquantifiable requiring judicial discretion, assessment of damages, or evaluative proof, it ceases to be a “small claim” and becomes a claim at large. Such claims, the Court observed, falls outside the SCC’s statutory mandate, which is ill-suited to adjudicating complex disputes demanding strict proof and detailed evidentiary analysis.

(Petition No. E008 of 2024) and (Petition No. E010 of 2024),

The petitioners contended that Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act was unequivocal: “compensation for personal injuries” necessarily includes injuries arising from road traffic accidents. To exclude Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs), they argued, would amount to judicial rewriting of the statute.

The Court rejected this submission. Applying a purposive and contextual interpretation, the bench held that the SCC was intended to adjudicate simple, small, and straightforward disputes predominantly commercial and contractual in nature. While personal injury claims are not inherently excluded, the Court reasoned that RTA claims possess distinguishing characteristics that place them outside the SCC’s intended scope.

Specifically, RTA litigation typically involves: Proof and apportionment of negligence, complex and contested medical evidence, expert testimony, statutory compliance under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act and engagement with insurers and policy defences.

These features, the Court held, are incompatible with the SCC’s informal procedures, restricted evidentiary framework, and rigid timelines. The adjudicative depth required in RTA claims cannot, in the Court’s view, be reconciled with the SCC’s design philosophy. The bench therefore concluded that personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents are excluded from Section 12(1)(d) of the Act and fall outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The Court’s most unambiguous constitutional pronouncement concerned Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules, which permitted enforcement of SCC decrees by reference to the Civil Procedure Act, including arrest and committal to civil jail. The bench held that civil jail constitutes a limitation of the right to personal liberty under Article 29 of the Constitution. Any such limitation must satisfy the requirements of Article 24, including legality, necessity, and proportionality. Rule 25(1), as subsidiary legislation, failed this test.

By importing civil jail through cross-referencing, the Rule imposed a severe limitation on liberty without adequate justification or safeguards. The Court therefore declared Rule 25(1) unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void.

Conclusion

This determination gives clarity to a far retracted debate on the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to handle personal injury claims. However, the jury is still out as to the sustainability of this determination and its broader implications on the judiciary and access to justice.