The High Court has ruled that any ruling delivered by a Small Claims Court after 60 days from the date a case is filed is invalid. This decision reinforces the requirement that such cases must be concluded strictly within two months.

Justice William Musyoka, who presided over the matter, found that a case lodged on November 7, 2022, had its judgment issued on February 21, 2023—107 days later—well beyond the set legal window. “Judgment ought to have been delivered by January 6, 2023. The judgment delivered on February 21, 2023, was, therefore, a nullity,” he said.

The ruling stemmed from an appeal brought by Daniel Makanda, who had contested a judgment from the Small Claims Court that awarded motorcycle rider Eugene Osita general damages of 800,000 shillings, special damages of 3,550,000 shillings, and an additional 80,000 shillings for future medical care.

Justice Musyoka ruled in Makanda’s favour, noting that once the 60-day limit expired, the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter.

“As the 60-day period had lapsed by the time judgment was delivered, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction and should not have returned any verdict.Consequently, I allow the appeal. The judgment of February 21, 2023, is hereby set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the suit before the trial court,” he ruled.

He also clarified that neither the Small Claims Court Act nor its Rules permit any extension of the 60-day period. The trial court in this case had also not made any attempt to seek additional time. The law, he noted, was clear.

The court pointed to Section 34(3) of the Act, which restricts the granting of adjournments unless there are “exceptional and unforeseen circumstances,” as defined in Section 34(4). The judge said the emphasis by Parliament on the strict timeline shows how critical it is that Small Claims matters are dealt with promptly. “If the 60-day timeline were not mandatory, Parliament would not have taken such pains to emphasise it,” the judge added.

The original case arose from a traffic collision on Gitanga Road in Nairobi. Osita, riding a motorcycle, claimed he was hit by a vehicle driven by Makanda at the Muthangari Gardens junction. He blamed Makanda for driving carelessly and sought compensation for injuries and damages.

Makanda did not deny owning the vehicle or that the crash occurred, but rejected claims of negligence and insisted that Osita was responsible for the accident.

The High Court's decision clarifies that once the 60 days expire, the Small Claims Court loses its authority to give any ruling. This firm stance is expected to guide how the courts handle minor claims going forward.

Established in 2016, the Small Claims Court was created to speed up the resolution of minor disputes, including issues like property damage, personal injury, and small-scale contracts.

With its jurisdiction limited to claims not exceeding one million shillings, it plays a key role in helping ease pressure on the larger court system. This new ruling now draws a clear line on how time-sensitive those decisions must be.