The High Court of Kenya has ruled that the Small Claims Court (SCC) lacks jurisdiction to hear personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents (RTAs).
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge bench held that although Section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act refers to “compensation for personal injuries,” Parliament did not intend that provision to cover complex negligence-based claims arising from road accidents.
“A claim for compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident cannot qualify as a small and simple claim,” the court ruled.
Insurance Rights and Fair Trial Concerns
The judges found that allowing RTA injury claims to be handled by the Small Claims Court would undermine the rights of insurers under Sections 3A and 3B of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, and would therefore violate Article 50 of the Constitution on the right to a fair hearing.
The court observed that if Parliament intended to limit insurers’ statutory rights within the SCC framework, it would have expressly said so—just as it did when relaxing evidentiary rules under the Evidence Act.
“Claims for compensation for injuries arising out of road traffic accidents were not contemplated to be part of the matters to be entertained by the Small Claims Court,” the judges stated.
Rule Allowing Civil Jail Declared Unconstitutional
In a further blow to the SCC framework, the High Court declared Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules unconstitutional to the extent that it permits execution of decrees through arrest and committal to civil jail by importing provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court held that the Small Claims Court Act expressly provides specific modes of execution, none of which include arrest or imprisonment.
All RTA Injury Cases to Be Transferred
The three-judge bench directed that all personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents currently before the Small Claims Court be transferred to magistrates’ courts for hearing and determination.
“Accordingly, we find and hold that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents,” the court ruled.
Why RTA Injury Claims Are Too Complex for SCC
The High Court explained that personal injury claims arising from RTAs require proof of:
-
Duty of care
-
Breach of duty
-
Causation
-
Damages
Such claims often involve medical evidence, insurance policies, expert testimony, and statutory frameworks under the Insurance Act—making them unsuitable for the simplified, informal, and expedited procedures envisioned under the Small Claims Court system.
SCC Framework Still Constitutional for Simple Claims
Despite limiting the SCC’s jurisdiction, the court upheld the constitutionality of several provisions of the Small Claims Court Act and Rules, including:
-
Timelines for conclusion of cases
-
Limitation of appeals to points of law
-
Relaxed evidentiary rules
The judges said these provisions were deliberately designed to support the SCC’s mandate as a fast, affordable, and accessible forum for simple civil disputes involving claims below Sh1 million.
“These provisions were not introduced to restrict the right to a fair trial, but to facilitate informal processes for the nature of cases contemplated for that court,” the bench said.
Key Takeaway
The ruling draws a firm line between simple civil claims and complex negligence-based injury litigation, confirming that road accident injury claims belong in magistrates’ courts, not the Small Claims Court.