Thiongo v Mwangi (Commercial Case E81262 of 2025) [2026] SCC 48 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 48 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MILIMANI SMALL CLAIMS COURT COMMERCIAL CASE E81262 OF 2025 GW KIAMAH, RM JUNE 26, 2026 BETWEEN BERNARD NGANGA THIONGO ......................................................... CLAIMANT AND BENSON GITHINJI MWANGI .......................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. I have considered the statement of claim, response thereto and reply to the response. The claimant sought judgment as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 595,780/= on the basis that the same was a balance arising from a sale agreement dated 16/5/2025 relating to Plot Nairobi Block 130/1597 Hse No. B35/6. In her response, the respondent admitted the agreement but pleaded that payment of the balance was conditional upon vacant possession, eviction of tenants, and settlement of outstanding bills. She further asserted various set-ofis, ultimately admitting only Kshs. 255,858/ = as the only balance due and the same was payable subject to fulfilment of the said conditions. The claimant in response denied any conditional payment or deductions and insisted on full payment. 2. Though the claimed amount of Kshs. 585,780/= is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, the claim as framed raised serious jurisdictional concerns. I say so noting that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which any judicial proceedings stand and without it, a court must down its tools. See Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR, where the Court held that jurisdiction is everything and that a court acting without jurisdiction acts in vain. 3. Section 12 of the SCC Act provides for the jurisdiction of court to adjudicate over simple civil jurisdiction which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Though the instant dispute is framed as one for money owed, I do note that the dispute arises from a sale agreement relating to immovable property and raises substantive issues regarding vacant possession, eviction of tenants, completion obligations, and entitlement to set-ofis. These issues go beyond a simple liquidated claim https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/48/eng@2026-06-26 1
page 1 of 2
for a debt and require determination of rights and obligations that fall within the jurisdiction of courts exercising land jurisdiction. 4. For the dispute to be fully determined on, the Court must address whether vacant possession was a condition precedent to payment of the balance, whether the respondent was entitled to set-ofis for rent, utilities, and other alleged expenses and whether there was any breach of completion obligations by either party. Issues touching on occupation, eviction of tenants, and handover of the property also require determination. 5. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction by virtue of Section 13 (5) of the SCC Act which excludes disputes over a title to or possession of land. 6. The upshot is that the claim is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The claimant is at liberty to prosecute the dispute in a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Each party shall bear its own costs. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/48/eng@2026-06-26 2
page 2 of 2