Akinyi v Ogwari & another

Introduction

[1]The applicants moved this Court by way of a notice of motion dated 14th November 2025, seeking a review of the Court's ruling delivered on 3rd October 2025. The application is brought under Article 163 of the Constitution, sections 3, 21 and 22 of the Supreme Court Act, and Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012.

[2]Two questions fall for determination. First, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising from a determination of the Small Claims Court. Second, and only if the first question is answered in the affirmative, whether the applicants have satisfied the threshold for review.

[3]Article 163(3)(b)(ii) of the Constitution confers upon this Court appellate jurisdiction in respect of such matters as may be prescribed by national legislation. The operative words are “as may be prescribed”. The Court's appellate remit is therefore not at large; it is contingent upon a statute enacted by Parliament. Absent such prescription, an appeal cannot lie to this Court, however substantial the grievance.

Background

[4]The dispute between the parties originated in the Small Claims Court at Milimani, where the first respondent sued the applicants for the recovery of Kshs. 640,000 arising from an oral contract for the supply of hardware. The claim was lodged in 2024.

[5]The Small Claims Court delivered judgment in favour of the first respondent on 11th February 2025. Aggrieved, the applicants lodged an appeal in the High Court. By a judgment delivered on 4th July 2025, the High Court (Mwita, J.) dismissed the appeal, holding that it was incompetent for want of jurisdiction under section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act.

[6]The applicants then sought certification to appeal to this Court. That application was declined by the Court of Appeal, and the present application for review followed.

Submissions of the parties

[7]Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Small Claims Court Act, read together with Article 163(3) of the Constitution, does not expressly bar a further appeal, and urged that where a statute is silent the Court should lean towards construing its jurisdiction expansively so as not to leave a litigant without a remedy.

[8]Counsel for the respondents supported the concurrent findings below. It was submitted that section 38 is emphatic that an appeal from the Small Claims Court lies to the High Court and that the decision of the High Court is final. Finality, counsel argued, is a deliberate legislative choice designed to keep small claims small.

[9]Counsel further relied on Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others, submitting that a court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation, and never from the grace of a litigant or the inclination of the bench.

Analysis and determination

[10]We have considered the application, the responses and the authorities cited. The threshold question is one of jurisdiction, and we must address it first, for without it we act in vain: Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd.

[11]It is common ground that the Small Claims Court Act establishes a court of limited jurisdiction with a streamlined procedure. Section 38 provides that a party aggrieved by a decision of that court may appeal to the High Court, and that the decision of the High Court on such appeal shall be final.

[12]The word “final” admits of no ambiguity in this context. It has never been part of Kenyan law that the words “as may be prescribed by national legislation” in Article 163(3)(b)(ii) operate to confer a general appellate jurisdiction in the absence of such prescription.

[13]We note the applicants' plea that a denial of a further appeal leaves them without a remedy. That is a misconception. Article 50 of the Constitution guarantees a fair hearing, not an endless succession of appeals. Finality is itself an element of a fair and efficient system of justice.

[14]We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was right to find that the appeal before it was incompetent, and equally that the application seeking certification to bring the matter before this Court cannot stand.

Disposition

[15]In the result, the notice of motion dated 14th November 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondents. It is so ordered.