Evans Nyambega Akuma v Fiona Orioki & 2 others

decisions of the Small Claims Court. From the outset, it is important to point out that most of the prayers sought in the application are repetitive, argumentative, and seek substantive relief before the appeal is heard. A High Court would ordinarily isolate the competent prayers and determine only those capable of being granted at the interlocutory stage. 4. The Respondents did not file any responses to the Application. 5. I find that the main issues for determination are as follows: a. Whether this Court has jurisdiction. b. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for extension of time. c. Whether consolidation should be ordered. d. Whether the declaratory orders sought are available. Analysis and Determination Jurisdiction 6. The jurisdiction of this Court is donated by Section 38(1) of the Small Claims Court Act, which provides that appeals from the Small Claims Court lie to the High Court only on matters of law. 7. In Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another vs. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR the Supreme Court held that a court derives its jurisdiction from the Constitution or statute and cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction not donated by law. 8. Similarly, in Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, Nyarangi JA famously stated that jurisdiction is everything without which a court has no power to make one more step. 9. Consequently, before considering the merits of the application, the Court must satisfy itself that the intended appeal raises arguable questions of law within Section 38. Leave to appeal out of time 10. The Small Claims Court Act prescribes timelines for appeals but the High Court still retains discretion to enlarge time where sufficient cause is demonstrated, applying the principles under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Court's inherent jurisdiction. 11. In Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR the Supreme Court held that extension of time is not a right but is an equitable remedy that may be granted upon sufficient explanation for the delay and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 12. In the present case, I note that the Applicant merely states that the appeal should be admitted and consolidated but has not explained when the impugned decisions were delivered, when time expired, the length of delay or why the appeal was not filed within time. 13. I find that without a satisfactory explanation, the Court cannot exercise its discretion to extend time judicially. Consolidation 14. The principles governing consolidation were discussed in Law Society of Kenya vs. Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others [2014] eKLR, where the Supreme Court held that consolidation is https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9800/eng@2026-07-02 2

page 2 of 4

appropriate where matters involve common questions of law or fact and where consolidation promotes efficient disposal of litigation. 15. In the present case, the Applicant seeks consolidation of two Small Claims Court matters. I however note that no pleadings, judgments or memorandum of appeal have been annexed so as to enable the Court determine whether the issues are sufficiently similar to warrant consolidation. 16. The Court therefore lacks an evidential basis upon which to order consolidation. Declaratory orders 17. The Applicant seeks declarations that the decree is "unchallenged", that the debt is admitted and that the decree should automatically be allowed. I note that these are substantive issues forming the merits of the intended appeal. 18. It is settled law that interlocutory applications should not determine the substantive rights of parties. In Nguruman Ltd vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal reiterated that interlocutory proceedings are not intended to conclusively determine disputed rights. 19. I therefore decline to grant the declaratory prayers at this interlocutory stage. Miscellaneous complaints 20. The Applicant also alleged conflict of interest, denial of fair hearing and irregular conduct by the trial court. This court notes that even though these allegations are serious, they are not supported by affidavits or documentary evidence. 21. It is trite that allegations of judicial bias or violation of constitutional rights must be proved through cogent evidence and cannot be founded upon bare assertions. This is the position that was taken in Kalpana H. Rawal vs. Judicial Service Commission & Others [2016] eKLR. 22. Having considered the application, the annexures and applicable law, I find that: 23. a. The Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time. b. No basis has been laid for consolidation. c. The declaratory orders sought cannot be granted at an interlocutory stage. d. Several prayers in the application seek final relief before the appeal is admitted and are therefore incompetent. Consequently, I find that the application lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026. HON. W A OKWANY JUDGE In the presence of; Appellant present in person No appearance for Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9800/eng@2026-07-02 3

page 3 of 4

Abdirzak – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9800/eng@2026-07-02 4

page 4 of 4