Sakwa v Chaju Builders Limited (Civil Case E060 of 2026) [2026] SCC 186 (KLR)

(c) the contract to which the claim relates was either made or was intended to be performed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; or (e) the defendant to the claim resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. However, Rule 3(2) of the Small Claims Court Rules provides that: The claimant shall file the Statement of Claim at the Court nearest to the place where — (a) the transaction or event to which the claim relates took place; or (b) the respondent ordinarily resides or carries on business. 5. The Small Claims Court Rules are subsidiary legislation made pursuant to the Small Claims Court Act. They exist to facilitate the implementation of the Act and cannot contradict the substantive provisions enacted by Parliament. Where any inconsistency arises between the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Act take precedence. I associate myself with the Claimant’s cited authority of Wavinya Ndeti v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 4 others [2014] KECA 629 (KLR). 6. A perusal of the statement of claim filed reveals that the accident occurred on 14th May, 2026 involving motor vehicle registration number KCM 944G and KDV 096W/ ZJO269 along Webuye- Bungoma road. The Claimant's statement on paragraph 1, the claimant confirms that he is a resident of Eldoret city within Uasin Gishu county and the owner of motor vehicle registration number KCM 944G operating under Vision Luxury Shuttle between Eldoret and Bungoma. 7. The case of Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & others [2012] the Supreme court while addressing the issue of jurisdiction stated that; “A court’s jurisdiction fiows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.” In the celebrated case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors [1969] EA 696: Sir Charles Newbold held as follows: -A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Law JA., observed that: So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleading and which if argued as Preliminary Objection may dispose of the suit. The question of the residence of parties, where they work and where the transaction happened from is apparent from the pleadings and documents before the court. 8. Territorial jurisdiction cannot trump or override substantive jurisdiction. A suit could be dismissed, for being filed in a court lacking substantive jurisdiction, but not where territorial jurisdiction lacks. A court lacking territorial jurisdiction, ought not strike out a suit, but it should, instead, invite the parties to apply for transfer of the matter to the court with jurisdiction if need be. 9. In the present suit, the claim falls within the ambit of section 15(a) of the Act and, accordingly, this Court is properly seized of the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Furthermore, with the advent of virtual court proceedings, the respondent has not demonstrated any prejudice that would be occasioned by the matter proceeding before this Court. This is particularly so considering https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/186/eng@2026-07-31 2

page 2 of 3

that the respondent's counsel is based in Eldoret and is capable of participating in the proceedings virtually or attending court without undue hardship. 10. In the light of the foregoing this court makes the following findings and determinations; a. The preliminary objection is found to be devoid of merit and it is hereby overruled; b. This court is found to be seized of territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. c. Costs shall abide the outcome of the Preliminary objection; d. Mention on 13th August, 2026 for compliance. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN ELDORET ON THIS 31TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. M.E ALIGULA- RM In the presence of C/A Mr. Lepatoiye Mr Kinyanjui for the Claimant Ms Gati for the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/186/eng@2026-07-31 3

page 3 of 3