Gichia t/a Kirasykie General Supplies and Services v Githinji - Chairman & 2 others (Commercial Case E518 of 2026) [2026] SCC 137 (KLR)

Analysis and Determination 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Hassan Ali Joho & Another v. Suleiman Said Shahbal & 2 Others, Petition No. 10 of 2013, [2014] eKLR endorsed the principles set out in the Mukisa Biscuit case regarding preliminary objection defining them as those that consist of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. 4. The instant Preliminary Objection as filed fits within the definition in the Mukisa Biscuits case as what is contended is the jurisdiction of the court to determine the suit. I will thus proceed to determine the same, considering the pleadings and submissions as filed by the Claimant herein. 5. I have considered the record herein and indeed the only issue for determination is whether this claim as filed ofiends Section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act. It is trite law that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which any judicial authority rests. This principle has been firmly established in a long line of authorities, most notably in the celebrated decision of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, which stands as the locus classicus on the question of jurisdiction. 6. Section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act on Prohibition on division of claims provides that; no claim shall be divided or pursued in parts for the sole purpose of bringing the sum claimed in each of such proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court. 7. Rule 3(4-6) of the Act provides as follows; 4. A claimant who has a claim of more than one million shillings may abandon that part of the claim that is in excess of two hundred thousand shillings. Where a claimant abandons part of a claim, he or she shall state in the Statement of Claim that the amount in excess of one million shillings has been abandoned. 6. A claimant who abandons part of a claim shall not subsequently sue for recovery of that part of the claim that has been abandoned, unless the claimant withdraws the entire claim in accordance with rule 14 (1) (c) and subsequently pursues the entire claim in a Magistrates Court 8. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and courts must restrict themselves to what has been pleaded. The Statement of Claim dated 29th May 2026 seeks judgment for Kshs. 719,565/- being payment for the supply of foodstufi to the Respondent. The Claimant has further filed a demand letter corroborating the said amount and has disavowed the demand letters dated 23rd June 2026 and 18th June 2026. The Respondent has not filed any response to the claim. 9. Having gone through the Claimant’s pleadings this court finds that the claim does not ofiend section 14 of the Small Claims Court Act as the amount sought is within this court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. Additionally, the Respondent has not placed before this court evidence of the existence of any other matter filed by the Claimant arising from the same course of action as the one herein for this court to be satisfied that the Claimant has indeed split its alleged claim of Kshs. 2,326,460/- as required under section 14 of the Act. 10. Additionally, by virtue of Rule 3, the Claimant shall not subsequently sue for recovery of that part of the claim that has been abandoned, unless the claimant withdraws the entire claim in accordance with rule 14 (1) (c) and subsequently pursues the entire claim in a Magistrates Court 11. Consequently, the Preliminary Objection dated 11th June 2026 is dismissed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/137/eng@2026-07-02 2

page 2 of 3

DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……2ND …. DAYOF……… JULY………2026 HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR In the presence of; …Ms. Okumu……for Claimant; ……Mr. Mathare…… for Respondent C/A Esther https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/137/eng@2026-07-02 3

page 3 of 3