E.Sidinyu and Co. Advocates v Muriuki & another (Commercial Case E1238 of 2025) [2026] SCC 123 (KLR) (29 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 123 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT MOMBASA COMMERCIAL CASE E1238 OF 2025 TN MWANGEKA, RM APRIL 29, 2026 BETWEEN E.SIDINYU AND CO. ADVOCATES ...................................................... CLAIMANT AND DANIEL GICHINI MURIUKI ..................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT KENYA ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ................... 2ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The Claimants herein seeks judgment for the sum of Kshs. 990,000/- being the amount owed to them as the insured of motor vehicle KDA 340L that was involved in an accident on 29th September 2024 which resulted in the said vehicle being written ofi. The Claimant further states that the Respondent instructed them to provide a list of documents as outline in the Statement of Claim in order to process the claim, which they did on 29th April 2025. Further, the Claimants were informed that the insurance policy was thereafter cancelled and were instructed to execute a discharge voucher wherein it expressly provided that the sum of Kshs. 990,000/- was payable to the Claimants. Up to date, the Claimant is yet to receive the said sums. 2. On their part, the Respondent challenges the claim based on Section 34 of the Small Claims Court Act stating that the 60 days prescribed in which to hear and determine the suit have lapsed and thus this court lacks jurisdiction to do anything further. Additionally, the Respondent pleads that the Claimant has not proved the validity of an existing contract and the indebtedness of the Respondent. 3. In finding that indeed this court does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter past the 60 day timeline, I rely on the decision in Biosystems Consultants v Nyali Links Arcade [2023] KEHC 21068 (KLR) and find that the 60 day timeline is more aspirational than mandatory. Additionally, Article 48 of the Constitution as read with Article 50 (1) of the Constitution guarantees each individual access to justice and the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/123/eng@2026-04-29 1
page 1 of 2
and public hearing before a court. Justice cannot be done unless both sides in a dispute are accorded adequate opportunity to ventilate their issues reasonably. I note from the record that the delay in this matter has not been entirely the Claimant’s fault. 4. To the substantive claim therefore, this court has perused the pleadings and documents filed in support of the respective cases and finds that there indeed existed a valid and binding contract as evidenced from the email correspondences between the parties which have not been refuted. It was an express agreement that the sum of Kshs. 990,000/- was payable to the Claimants upon signing the discharge voucher. It is trite and well settled law that the court cannot interfere or rewrite contracts between parties unless it was entered through fraud, coercion or it is against public policy. I therefore find the Respondent in breach of the said agreement. 5. In Jopa Villas v Private Investment Corporation & 2 others (2009) eKLR Lenaola J (as he was then) held:“ I am clear in my mind that the Applicant is running away from the obligations lawfully imposed and with its knowledge and participation. Courts should not aid it in that quest but will instead uphold the rights of the 1st Defendant to recover the monies lawfully advanced. Our courts must uphold the sanctity of lawful commercial transactions." 6. In the instant case, this court finds that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of Kshs. 990,000/- as payment of the contract sum. Remedies granted by the courts are designed to give efiect to what was voluntarily undertaken by the parties. 7. Consequently, judgement is entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 990,000/- together with interest and costs of the suit at court rates from date of filling. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT THIKA THE………29TH. DAY OF………APRIL… 2026 HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR In the presence of; ……Ms. Sidinyu…. for Claimant; ……Mr. Kioko… for Respondent C/A Sabina https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/123/eng@2026-04-29 2
page 2 of 2