Belfast Millers Limited v Nyaga (Civil Appeal E601 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 888 (KLR) (Civ) (29 January 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 888 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL CIVIL APPEAL E601 OF 2025 AC MRIMA, J JANUARY 29, 2026 BETWEEN BELFAST MILLERS LIMITED ............................................................... APPELLANT AND TERESIA MUTITU NYAGA .............................................................. RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the Ruling of Hon. B. J. Ofisi (Senior Resident Magistrate/ Adjudicator) delivered on 3rd March 2023 in Nairobi SCCOMM No. E865 of 2021) JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant in this appeal challenges the trial Court’s Ruling dated 3rd March 2023 where the Appellant’s application for review of the Adjudicator’s judgement was dismissed for ofiending Rule 29(2) of the Small Claims Court Rules. 2. The background giving rise to the appeal was that the Small Claims Court in Milimani SCCOMM E865 of 2021 rendered its judgment on 27th May 2022 in favour of the Appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant filed an application dated 3rd October 2022 seeking for review of the judgment on grounds that there were errors apparent on the face of the judgment. It averred that whereas the Statement of claim was dated 10th November 2021, the Learned Adjudicator made reference to one dated 8th February 2022. Additionally, the Appellant averred that its claim was for Kshs.417,240/= which on viva voce hearing, was clarified to be Kshs.323,920/=, but the figure captured in the judgment and which was awarded was for Kshs.100,000/=. It was for these reasons that the Appellant filed the application for extension of time and review. 3. In a ruling dated 3rd March 2023, the Learned Adjudicator dismissed the Appellant’s application for review on the basis that the same was brought past the three month’s timelines provided for under https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/888/eng@2026-01-29 1
page 1 of 3
the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Aggrieved by the said Ruling, the Appellant filed the instant appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 31st March 2023 and preferred the following grounds: 1. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by not granting leave to file application for review of judgement out of time despite the same being sought for and reasons for the delay being given. 2. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the reasons for filing the Application for review of judgment out of time. 3. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by failing to take into account that there was a clerical error apparent on the face of the record despite evidence being adduced in support of the same. 4. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the evidence tendered by the appellant as a whole. 5. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by arriving at findings not based on any evidence and or law. 6. That the Learned Adjudicator erred in law by disregarding the appellant’s submissions and authorities. 4. It was upon these grounds that the Appellant sought for the appeal to be allowed and the Ruling in Milimani SCCCOMM E865 of 2021 be set aside. The Appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant’s submissions were dated 23rd August 2023 while the Respondent’s submissions were dated 13th June 2024. Parties referred to various decisions in their quest to have their respective parties’ position be upheld. `The gist of the submissions will be ingrained in the latter part of this decision. 5. The Notice of motion dated 3rd October 2022 sought the following orders: 1. That this matter be certified as urgent and be heard ex-parte on the first instance. 2. That leave be granted to the Applicant to file the present Application for Review out of time. 3. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review, vacate and/or set aside the Judgment delivered on 27th May 2022 and Decree issued on 17th August 2022 respectively. 6. In the ruling which is the subject of this appeal, the Court stated that prayers 1 and 2 of the application were spent. It, therefore, means that the Court did not consider prayer 2 of the application which sought for extension of time to file the review application. The record is also silent on how the prayer 2 of the application was rendered spent. In essence, the Court did not consider the prayer for extension of time and proceeded to disallow prayer 3 on the basis that the application was filed out of time. 7. Given that the Court failed to consider the application wholly, the resultant ruling was in error. The Court is under a legal duty to consider and decide on all the substantive prayers sought in an application. In this case, the prayer for extension of time was no doubt quite a substantive one. It is on that ground that the Appellant was not accorded a fair hearing and the appeal must succeed. 8. Having said so, the following final orders do hereby issue: (a) The appeal hereby succeeds and the Ruling dated 3rd March 2023 is hereby set aside. (b) The Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2022 shall be heard afresh. (c) Parties shall bear their respective costs. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/888/eng@2026-01-29 2
page 2 of 3
Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026. A. C. MRIMA JUDGE Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of: Miss Musa, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Michael/Amina – Court Assistants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/888/eng@2026-01-29 3
page 3 of 3