Filed quietly into the statute books in 2016, then operationalised across all forty seven counties between 2021 and 2024, the Small Claims Court is the most significant access to justice reform of the past generation. Most Kenyans who would benefit from it have never heard of it. Let us fix that.
Sheria Smart Editorial Team
If you are in custody, facing imminent court proceedings, or in physical danger, do not rely on this article. Contact the National Legal Aid Service on 0800 720 640 at once, or reach an LSK advocate directly. Police and medical emergencies: 999 or 112.
Begin with the constitutional anchor. Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, lets Parliament create subordinate courts other than the Magistrate's Courts and Kadhi's Courts to handle specific kinds of disputes. The Small Claims Court is one of those creations. The Small Claims Court Act, Number 2 of 2016, assented to on 1 April 2016 and amended by Act Number 5 of 2020, established the Court, defined its jurisdiction, set its procedure, and gave it the constitutional warrant to do something the Kenyan civil justice system had never quite managed to do at scale, which is resolve a small dispute quickly, cheaply, and without the apparatus of representation that has historically priced ordinary people out of the formal courts. The Court was first gazetted into operation by Gazette Notice Number 3791 of 23 April 2021 at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi, and has since been rolled out to every county headquarters across the country.
Section 12 of the Act sets the pecuniary jurisdiction at one million shillings, after the 2020 amendment. The kinds of matters the Court can hear are listed in the same section, and they fall into a few practical buckets. First, contractual disputes, which is most of what comes through the door. Goods sold and not paid for. Services rendered and not paid for. Loans advanced and not repaid. Construction work disputed. The matter has to be founded on a contract, written or oral, between two parties whose dealings can be reduced to facts the Court can verify. Second, tort, which in plain terms covers the recovery of movable property and compensation for loss or damage to property. If your neighbour's son crashes into your gate and refuses to pay for the repair, that is a tort claim within the Court's reach. If a courier company loses your shipment and refuses to compensate, same answer. Third, set off and counterclaim under any contract, which allows a respondent to bring a related claim back against the claimant in the same proceeding rather than starting a new one.
The exclusions matter as much as the inclusions, perhaps more. The Act, at Section 12(5) and the related provisions, explicitly removes from the Court's jurisdiction any claim founded on defamation, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, or a dispute over title to or possession of land, or employment and labour relations. The exclusion of employment matters reflects that those have their own constitutional forum under Article 162 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Defamation and reputation matters require a depth of forensic engagement that a small claims procedure was not designed for. And land disputes were carved out because of the Land Court's specialised jurisdiction. The High Court has further held, in Lisa Kristine Christoffersen v. Kavneet Kaur Sehmi t/a The Random Shop, that disputes involving rent and rent arrears fall outside the Court's reach as well, because the dispute concerns a tenancy relationship that the legislature reserved for other forums. So if your landlord is withholding your deposit, do not go to the Small Claims Court. The Rent Restriction Tribunal or the relevant Magistrate's Court is the proper forum.
The point of Section 31 is not that representation is allowed. The point is that personal appearance is named first, and treated as the default.
Section 31 of the Act is the provision that gives the Court its democratic character. It says, in plain language, that a party may appear in person or be represented by an advocate. The point of that section is not that representation is allowed. Representation is allowed in every court. The point is that personal appearance is named first, recognised as the default, and not treated as the second best option that ordinary procedure usually treats it as. A small business owner can walk into the registry, file their own claim, attend their own hearing, examine their own witnesses, and walk out with a decree that is enforceable as a decree of the Magistrate's Court. The procedure is built so that this is the normal path, not the heroic one.
The Court is presided over by an Adjudicator appointed under Section 5. The Adjudicator is required to be an advocate of the High Court with at least three years of post admission experience, which is the same threshold for appointment as a magistrate. The Adjudicator's role is closer to that of an inquisitor than a referee. Section 32 disapplies the strict rules of evidence that govern the High Court, which means oral testimony, documentary evidence, and material that would be inadmissible elsewhere can all be received if it helps the Court do justice between the parties. The Adjudicator can ask questions directly. The Adjudicator can call witnesses. Section 18 expressly empowers the Adjudicator to refer parties to mediation at any stage of the proceedings, and a great many matters resolve there before a full hearing is reached.
Filing is straightforward. Section 23 governs the lodging of a claim. The claimant completes Form SCC1, a Statement of Claim that asks for the names and addresses of the parties, the amount sought, and a short narrative of the facts that explain why the amount is owed. There is no requirement for the formal pleadings drafting style that intimidates lay litigants in the High Court. The form is filed at the registry of any Small Claims Court within whose local limits the cause of action arose, the defendant resides, or the contract was made. The filing fee is calibrated to the value of the claim and is set by the Chief Justice from time to time under the Court's rules. As of the most recent fee schedule, claims under one hundred thousand shillings attract filing fees in the low hundreds of shillings. Even at the upper end of jurisdiction, the fee is materially lower than the equivalent in the regular civil courts.
Once filed, the registry serves notice on the respondent under Section 25. The respondent is given an opportunity to file a written response within a stipulated period, ordinarily fourteen days. If the respondent admits the claim, judgment can be entered by consent. If the respondent fails to respond at all, the claimant can apply for a default judgment under the Court's rules. If the respondent disputes the claim, the matter proceeds to a hearing.
Section 34 of the Act is the provision that, more than any other, distinguishes the Small Claims Court from every other civil forum in Kenya. It directs that proceedings before the Court shall be concluded within sixty days from the date of filing. Sixty days. From filing to determination. The Judiciary's own statistics, published in 2023, show that the Court has been substantially meeting that target, with a median disposal time of fifty three days across the operational stations. Compare that figure to the multi year backlogs in the regular civil courts and you begin to understand what the legislature was trying to build. The Court is not advisory. It does not exist to give people something to do while their real case waits in another registry. It is the real case, resolved in two months.
Hearings are conducted in the manner the Adjudicator considers most suitable to do justice between the parties, which is the language Section 26 of the Act uses. There is no formal pleading sequence. Each party explains their case in their own words. Documents are produced. Witnesses speak. The Adjudicator asks questions. Cross examination occurs but is not the gladiatorial spectacle that intimidates ordinary Kenyans into staying silent. Section 32 keeps the strict rules of evidence at bay, and the Court is empowered to receive material that would be inadmissible in the High Court if it helps the Court reach a just result.
The hearing can be conducted by electronic means under Section 27, which became important during the pandemic and has remained available where the parties consent. Some hearings now happen entirely over video link, which has further reduced the travel burden for litigants in counties with limited court coverage. The Adjudicator can also direct that a matter proceed by documents only, under Section 28, where the dispute is narrow and the documentary record is sufficient to dispose of it.
When the Adjudicator delivers judgment, the order takes effect as a decree of the Magistrate's Court of the area in which the Small Claims Court sits. The decree is enforceable through the standard methods set out in the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. Attachment of property. Garnishee proceedings against bank accounts. Appointment of a receiver where the matter justifies it. Sections of the Civil Procedure Code apply with the necessary modifications. The decree is real money. The judgment debtor cannot simply ignore it without exposure to enforcement action that the Magistrate's Court can authorise on application.
An aggrieved party may appeal under Section 38, but the appeal lies only on questions of law, and lies to the High Court of the relevant station. The decision of the High Court on such an appeal is final. The constraint is on purpose. The legislature did not want the Small Claims Court to become a first stage in a multi year appellate journey. It wanted finality. The Court resolve, not to start a second cycle of litigation.
I want to be honest about the limits, because the Small Claims Court is so useful that the temptation is to send everything there. It is the wrong forum for disputes above one million shillings. It is the wrong forum for matters carved out by Section 12(5), which I covered above. It is the wrong forum where the matter requires complex expert evidence that a sixty day timeline cannot accommodate, although the Adjudicator has some flexibility to extend if justice requires. It is the wrong forum where the matter requires injunctive relief beyond the limited interim orders the Court can make. And it is the wrong forum where you genuinely need an advocate to argue the legal complexity, even if the monetary value falls within jurisdiction. The point of the Court is not to displace the legal profession. The point is to give Kenyans a usable forum for the matters they can handle themselves, and to refer the rest where they need to go.
A small business owner whose customer has not paid for goods delivered three months ago does not need to choose between absorbing the loss and hiring an advocate whose fees will exceed the debt. They can walk into the Small Claims Court at their county headquarters. They can file Form SCC1, pay a few hundred shillings, attend a hearing within two months, and walk out with a decree. They can present their case in Swahili or in English under Section 33, with the Court providing interpretation if needed. If the matter feels too technical to handle alone, they can engage an advocate, who is welcome under Section 31 and whose fees in a small claims matter are governed by the Court's tariff. If they cannot afford an advocate, the National Legal Aid Service or the LSK Pro Bono Programme may be able to assist.
That is what the Constitution promised in Article 48 when it spoke of access to justice for all persons. The Small Claims Court is the most practical thing the State has done to honour that promise. The information about how to use it should be everywhere a Kenyan can find it, and so far it has been almost nowhere. That is the gap our work is built to close.
The assistant carries the conversation forward from where this briefing leaves it. Free to begin, in English or Kiswahili.