Astonea Construction Ltd v Eagle Armor Services Ltd (Civil Appeal E211 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8372 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8372 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E211 OF 2024 A MABEYA, J JUNE 12, 2026 BETWEEN ASTONEA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ............................................ APPELLANT AND EAGLE ARMOR SERVICES LIMITED ............................................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The respondent filed a statement of claim dated 6/8/2024 against the appellant seeking judgment in the sum of Kshs. 480,000/- in arrears for services ofiered to the appellant as well as costs of the suit with interest. 2. The appellant entered appearance vide a response dated 22/8/2024 wherein it denied the claim and sought the same to be dismissed with costs. 3. The matter proceeded to trial and in its judgment, the trial court found in favour of the respondent entering judgment in the sum of Kshs. 480,000/- with costs of the suit and interest at court rates. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment/decree, the appellant lodged this appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 18/10/2024 and raised five (5) grounds of appeal as follows: a. The learned trial magistrate erred in both law and fact in finding merit and allowing the claimant’s claim. b. The learned trial magistrate erred in both law and fact by allowing the claimant’s claim for Kshs. 480,000/- when there was no evidence for provision of services for the month of June and May. c. The learned trial magistrate erred in both law and fact in allowing the claimant’s claim despite the claimant failing to issue the respondent with a termination notice of less than two months as stipulated by the contract. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8372/eng@2026-06-12 1
page 1 of 2
d. The learned trial magistrate erred in both law and fact in failing to order that the claimant does issue the respondent with an ETR receipt to claim a tax refund being that the amount claimed is VAT exclusive. e. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to take into consideration the submissions made by the appellant. 5. The parties agreed to dispose the appeal by way of written submissions which I have duly considered in determination of this appeal. This being a first appeal, the Court is duty bound to evaluate the evidence before the trial court afresh and come to its own independent findings and conclusions. See Selles & Anor vs. Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123. 6. Before the trial court, the parties chose to proceed by way of section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act, to wit; on the basis of documents and written submissions, statements or other submissions presented to the Court. 7. This was the evidence presented before the trial court upon which the trial adjudicator made her decision. 8. I have considered the evidence tendered before the trial court. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides for the jurisdiction of this Court in determining appeals from the Small Claims Court. It provides thus; “ 1. A person aggrieved by the decision or an order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law. 2. An appeal from any decision or order referred to in subsection (1) shall be final.” 9. It is clear from the foregoing that, jurisdiction of this Court from the Small Claims Court is only on matters of law and not factual issues. It is not enough for a party to plead in its grounds of appeal that the trial magistrate “erred in law” then proceed to set out issues of facts that they are aggrieved with. 10. A perusal of the Grounds of Appeal elucidated by the appellant reveals that they are all matters of fact. They invite this Court to consider the issues of facts which were proven or not proven before the trial court. These are matters that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain. This Court cannot re-look or second guess the trial court’s findings on evidence. 11. Further, this Court has similarly gone through the proceedings by the adjudicator and has not come upon any instance of whimsical exercise of discretion and the same has not been demonstrated by the appellant. 12. The upshot of the above is that the Court finds the appeal to be without merit and dismisses the same with costs. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. A. MABEYA, FCI Arb JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8372/eng@2026-06-12 2
page 2 of 2