Odera v Principal ACK Korisai Secondary School & another (Commercial Case E085 of 2026) [2026] SCC 165 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 165 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT MALABA COMMERCIAL CASE E085 OF 2026 AZ OGANGE, RM JULY 21, 2026 BETWEEN ELIAKIM ODERA ..................................................................................... CLAIMANT AND THE PRINCIPAL ACK KORISAI SECONDARY SCHOOL .... 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD OF MANAGEMENT ACK KORISAI SECONDARY SCHOOL ......................................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. What is before me for determination is the respondents’ preliminary objection dated 10th June 2026 challenging the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this matter on the following grounds: a. That the Small Claims Court Act under Section 12 lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the present claim as the dispute arises from an employer-employee relationship. b. That the Honorable Court should therefore strike out the claim with costs for want of jurisdiction. 2. The Preliminary Objection is opposed vide the Claimant’s replying afidavit sworn on 13th July 2026 wherein it is deponed that the Respondent’s notice of preliminary objection is an attempt to introduce disputed questions of fact under the guise of points of law and contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Small Claims Court Act and that the claim is with regard to money had and received of which the Respondents are fully aware of the money not remitted to him. The Claimant has urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection. 3. This matter came up for mention for directions on 15th July when parties took directions on disposal of the notice of preliminary objection. The Claimant sought to fully rely on his Replying Afidavit with the Respondent’s counsel seeking two days to file and serve submissions. The court reserved the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/165/eng@2026-07-21 1
page 1 of 2
matter for ruling on 21st July 2026. The Respondent’s submissions are on record and which I have read and considered. 4. The issue falling for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present claim in light of the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection. 5. The Respondents contend that the dispute arises from an employment relationship and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labor Relations Court. The Claimant on the other hand contends that the claim is one for money had and received and is therefore properly before this court. 6. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step. The court must therefore ascertain the true nature of the dispute from the pleadings and the substance of the claim rather than the label assigned to it by a party. 7. Upon considering the Statement of Claim, the court notes that the Claimant expressly pleads that he was employed by the Respondents as a teacher, that his employment was terminated and that upon termination he was not paid his full employment dues. The reliefs sought fiow directly from the alleged contract of employment and the alleged failure by the Respondents to settle terminal benefits arising therefrom. 8. Although the Claimant attempts to characterize the claim as one for money had and received, the pleadings disclose no averment that he remitted or entrusted any money to the Respondents which they are obliged to refund. Rather the Claim seeks payment of alleged salary arrears and terminal dues said to have accrued during the course of employment. The court is therefore unable to agree with Claimant’s characterization of the dispute. 9. Section 13(5) of the Small Claims Court Act expressly excludes from the jurisdiction of this court claims relating to employment and labor relations. Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter regardless of the monetary value of the claim. 10. Accordingly, the Preliminary Objection is merited and is hereby upheld. The Claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction. The Respondents shall have costs of the Preliminary Objection and the suit which are assessed at Kshs. 5,000/=. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MALABA SMALL CLAIMS COURT THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026. A.Z. OGANGE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR 21.07.2026 In the Presence of Eliakim Odera the Claimant and N/A for the Respondents Court Assistant: Paul Otieno https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/165/eng@2026-07-21 2
page 2 of 2