Wafula v Dreamline Express Ltd (Commercial Case E061 of 2025) [2026] SCC 89 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Voi Small Claims Court dismissed a review application, confirming it cannot transfer files to the magistrates' court and that review requires a self-evident error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's orders of 15/6/2026 directing that the application dated 12/6/2026 be filed and considered by the Magistrates' court
- 2.Whether the court should determine the application dated 15/6/2026 seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment
- 3.Whether there was infringement of the constitutional right to a fair hearing
Key legal issues
#Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's orders of 15/6/2026
No error apparent on the face of the record; the application for review was without merit
The court applied the test from National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau and Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo that an error on the face of the record must be self-evident, not requiring elaborate arguments, and that a misconstruction of a statute or an erroneous conclusion of law is not a ground for review. Guideline 10(2) of the Kenya Gazette Notice was clear that post-judgment applications fall to the magistrates' court, so the orders spoke with clarity.
Whether the applicant's right to a fair hearing was infringed by the court declining jurisdiction without first determining the application to set aside the ex parte judgment
The fair hearing argument did not arise; the directions merely required the applicant to file the application in the proper forum
The court held that the constitutional fair hearing argument was not engaged because the guidelines simply directed the applicant to file the post-judgment application in the proper forum, following the Eldoret decision which removed road traffic accident claims from the small claims court's jurisdiction. There was no denial of a hearing, only a redirection to the competent forum.
Whether the court could transfer the matter to the magistrates' court as requested
The small claims court lacks power to transfer a file to the magistrates' court or any other court except another small claims court
The Adjudicator noted that even if the review succeeded, the relief sought (transfer to the magistrates' court) was beyond the court's powers. Jurisdiction to transfer exists only to another small claims court. This undermined the applicant's submission and formed part of the basis for dismissing the application.
Legal principles established
#- An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and manifest, not one requiring elaborate arguments or a long-drawn process of reasoning to establish; a mere erroneous decision or incorrect exposition of the law is not a ground for review
- A small claims court has no power to transfer a file to the magistrates' court or any other court except to another small claims court
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24/6/26 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The claimant is awarded costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 5,000/=
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court review jurisdiction over its own orders
Relief refused
#Review of the orders of 15/6/2026 and transfer of the matter to the magistrates' court
No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated; the court lacks power to transfer the file to the magistrates' court, only to another small claims court
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 5,000/=, costs following the event
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.
The application dated 24/6/26 is not merited and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety
Since costs follow event, the claimant is awarded costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 5,000/=
no error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it
Mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review though it may be one for appeal
this court has no powers to transfer the file to the magistrates court or any other court except to another small claims court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to an affidavit 'sworn on 24th June 2026' but the application is described as dated 24/6/26 and submissions dated 2/7/2026, with the affidavit of the claimant sworn 29th June 2026 - internal dating is consistent but the reference to the Eldoret decision taking away small claims court jurisdiction over road traffic accident claims is mentioned without its full citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wafula v Dreamline Express Ltd (Commercial Case E061 of 2025) [2026] SCC 89 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 24/6/2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/89/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.