Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsDismissedNot stated in the judgment

Valere Business Sytems v Cementers Ltd (Claim E18906 of 2024) [2025] SCC 36 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
10 December 2025
TOT. O. Omono
2,132 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Stephen Thuku, moved the Small Claims Court at Bungoma by Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2025, after the case had been reserved for judgment, seeking leave to introduce and file additional documentary evidence, to have the documents deemed properly on record, and to reopen his case for their admission. He averred the documents were discovered during an internal audit and reconciliation after the judgment date was set, and would clarify the true extent of the Respondent's indebtedness. The Respondent, Nikhil Vishram, opposed, arguing that motions to arrest judgment are unknown in civil procedure, that the documents were always in the Claimant's custody, and that the Claimant was merely seeking to cure weaknesses in its case. The Adjudicator, T. O. Omono, framed two issues. First, whether the court could arrest delivery of judgment: although such motions are expressly provided for only in section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court, following Bwana Mohamed Bwana, held it had inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and power under section 36(4) of the Small Claims Court Act to do so. Second, on reopening the case, the court applied the established factors: stage of proceedings, due diligence, prejudice, and peculiar circumstances. It found the documents were in the Claimant's custody from filing, the Claimant had failed to file a response to the amended Response as permitted under Rule 17(5), and Rule 18(4) required supplementary documents at least three days before hearing. Granting leave would encourage piecemeal litigation and prejudice the Respondent's right to expeditious, cost-effective disposal. The application was dismissed with costs of Kshs. 5,000/= to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether this court can make an order for the arrest of delivery of judgment
  2. 2.Whether the Claimant/Applicant should be granted leave to reopen their case to file further documents

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a civil court can order arrest of delivery of judgment

Holding

Yes. Although motions in arrest of judgment are expressly provided for only in section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held it possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and statutory power under section 36(4) of the Small Claims Court Act to make such orders in the interest of justice.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued that arrest of judgment is a creature of criminal procedure unknown to civil litigation. The court noted there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Act or the Small Claims Court Act, but relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bwana Mohamed Bwana, affirming inherent jurisdiction under section 3A, and on section 36(4) of the Small Claims Court Act permitting any order necessary to achieve the Act's purposes. It therefore found jurisdiction existed.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant should be granted leave to reopen its case and file additional documents after the case was reserved for judgment

Holding

No. The discretion to reopen a case was not exercised in the Claimant's favour because the documents were always in its custody, no exceptional circumstances existed, the Claimant failed to use the procedural avenues available, and granting leave would prejudice the Respondent.

Reasoning

Applying the factors in Johana Kipkemei Too v Hellen Tum and related authorities, the court found the application came too late, the documents were in the Claimant's custody from filing, and the Claimant had obtained but never used leave to file a response to the amended Response. Rule 18(4) required supplementary documents at least three days before hearing. Allowing the application would encourage piecemeal litigation and gap-filling after seeing the opponent's case, and would defeat the Act's spirit of cost-effective, expeditious disposal.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A court in civil litigation, including the Small Claims Court, has inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and power under Section 36(4) of the Small Claims Court Act to order arrest of delivery of judgment where justice so demands.
  • The discretion to reopen a party's case for additional evidence is exercised judiciously, considering the stage of proceedings, due diligence, prejudice, and peculiar circumstances.
  • Documents cannot supplant pleadings; evidence at variance with pleadings cannot be considered.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of Kshs. 5,000/= awarded to the Respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

TO
T. O. OmonoAdjudicator
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 36(4) of the Small Claims Court Act and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent jurisdiction), with Article 50 of the Constitution invoked by the parties

Relief refused

#

Leave to file additional evidence discovered after the judgment date was set

The documents were in the Claimant's custody from the time of filing; they were not new or newly discovered evidence

p. 6

Reopening of the Claimant's case to admit the additional documents

Application made after the case was reserved for judgment, without due diligence or exceptional circumstances, and would prejudice the Respondent

p. 7

Deeming the Claimant's annexed documents as duly filed and properly on record

Fell with the dismissal of the application

Costs

Dismissed with costs of Kshs. 5,000/= to the Respondent

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

In the circumstances, the Claimant/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2025 is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs of Kshs. 5,000/= to the Respondent.
p. 8Final orders - dismissal of the application
This court takes the view that such orders include orders to arrest the delivery of a judgment for ends of justice to meet.
p. 4Inherent jurisdiction to arrest delivery of judgment in civil matters
Even in instances where parties elect to proceed under section 30 of the Act, documents cannot supplant pleadings.
p. 7Primacy of pleadings over documents
The Claimant/Applicant seeks to have a second bite of the cherry too late in the day through blatant disregard of the rules governing the conduct of proceedings in this court.
p. 7Late application to reopen case

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment attributes the argument against arrest of judgment to the Respondent's 'Supporting Affidavit' when it was actually advanced in the Replying Affidavit sworn by Nikhil Vishram

minor

Case title and case number are not stated in the judgment; the parties are identified only by the names of the deponents

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Valere Business Sytems v Cementers Ltd (Claim E18906 of 2024) [2025] SCC 36 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/36/eng@2025-12-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.