REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT AT NAIROBI SCCOMM NO. E6749 OF 2026 TELLYRENCE BARASA WAYONGO ………….……….... ….CLAIMANT VERSUS WORROW LIMITED…………….…………………………RESPONDENT RULING 1. The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 18/6/2026 seeking various orders. When the matter came up for the first mention on 2/7/2026, the claimant’s Counsel informed court that service had been effected via email to the respondent’s advocate. This Court found that there was no notice of appointment for the respondent thus service was unsatisfactory. The claimant was directed to serve again. 2. The matter was again mentioned on 16/7/2026 when Counsel submitted that service had been effected vide an email address that had been previously used for communication. 3. I have once again perused the court record. Despite the directions issued by this Court, there is no affidavit or certificate of service demonstrating service upon the respondent. Further, there is no notice of appointment of advocates by the respondent to justify service upon any 1|Page JUDGMENT SCCOME6749 OF 2026
page 1 of 4
advocate, and the alleged email correspondences were not filed to establish that the email address used belonged to or was authorized by the respondent. As such, service remains unsatisfactory. 4. It is trite that service of pleadings is not a mere procedural technicality. It is the foundation upon which the right to be heard is secured. Before a court can proceed in the absence of a party or enter judgment against them, it must be satisfied that the party was duly notified of the proceedings. In the absence of proof of service, any orders made against such a party would offend the rules of natural justice. 5. I do note that despite failing to adhere to directions of this Court, the claimant persisted in seeking directions towards disposal of the matter without first regularizing service. The conduct displayed shows a lack of diligence in complying with the Court’s directions and in ensuring that the respondent is accorded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 6. I am also alive to the nature and objectives of the Small Claims Court which establishe a forum intended to facilitate the just, expeditious and efficient resolution of disputes within strict statutory timelines. Those timelines, however, are predicated on proper invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction through service of proceedings upon the opposing party. They cannot be used to circumvent the fundamental requirement that a respondent be notified of the claim before adverse orders are sought. 2|Page JUDGMENT SCCOME6749 OF 2026
page 2 of 4
7. In the circumstances of this case, this Court cannot consider entry of default judgment. In the absence of proof of service, the respondent’s obligation to enter appearance or respond to the claim has not crystallized. Consequently, no basis exists upon which default judgment can issue. 8. Given the failure to effect and demonstrate service despite clear directions from the Court and bearing in mind the need for the efficient utilization of judicial resources and the expeditious disposal of matters before this Court, I find that the claim is incompetent as it stands. 9. As such, the claim is hereby struck out for want of service. The Claimant is at liberty to file a fresh claim upon proper preparation, tracing and service. 10. No order as to costs. 11. The file is marked as closed. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 14th Day of August 2026 HON. GLADYS. W. KIAMAH RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR 3|Page JUDGMENT SCCOME6749 OF 2026
page 3 of 4
4|Page JUDGMENT SCCOME6749 OF 2026
page 4 of 4