Jurisdiction of Small Claims Court on refund of security deposits : The Case of Muhanda v LP Holdings Ltd (Civil Appeal E256 of 2023) [2025}

The landmark decision by the High Court in Muhanda v LP Holdings Ltd (Civil Appeal E256 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 393 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 January 2025) has now clarified that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction over such claims.

In the case, the High Court determined that refund of security deposits falls within the category of “a contract for money held and received” under Section 12(b) of the Small Claims Act (No. 2 of 2016). The judgment also noted that the matter had initially been declined by the Small Claims Court on jurisdictional grounds. However, Justice Helene R.  Namisi, after finding that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction, referred the matter back to the SCC to be heard and determined on its merits by a different adjudicator.

 

On the inheritance rights of children informally adopted by a deceased person: The case of Willingstone Muchigi Kimari v. Rahab Wanjiru Mugo

The case of Willingstone Muchigi Kimari v. Rahab Wanjiru Mugo, Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1990, is a significant decision in Kenyan succession law, particularly concerning the inheritance rights of children informally adopted by a deceased person.(Knowledge Tree Law Notes)

---

📌 Case Overview

• Court: Court of Appeal of Kenya
• Citation: Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1990
• Judges: Gachuhi, Muli, and Akiwumi JJA
• Date: 1990(Knowledge Tree Law Notes)

---

⚖️ Legal Issue

The central issue was whether a child informally adopted by a deceased person is considered a "child" under Section 3(2) of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, and thus entitled to inherit from the deceased's estate.

---

🧾 Court's Findings

The Court of Appeal held that:

• Section 3(2) Interpretation: The definition of a "child" under this section applies exclusively to children whom a male deceased person had accepted or assumed permanent responsibility over.
• Informal Adoption: A child informally adopted by a female deceased person does not qualify as a "child" for the purposes of inheritance under the Law of Succession Act.(Knowledge Tree Law Notes)

---

📚 Legal Implications

This ruling underscores the statutory distinction between children formally recognized by male deceased persons and those informally adopted by female deceased persons in the context of inheritance rights.(Knowledge Tree Law Notes)

---

🧭 Conclusion

The decision in Willingstone Muchigi Kimari v. Rahab Wanjiru Mugo clarifies that, under Kenyan law, only children whom a male deceased person has formally recognized or assumed permanent responsibility for are entitled to inherit from his estate. This case highlights the importance of formal recognition in determining inheritance rights.

---

 

On adhering to the procedural requirements set when terminating an employee's contracts or suspension: The case of Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Silafrica Limited [2025] KEELRC 1205

 Brief facts/Background:

On suspension, in the case, the Claimant’s position was that the Respondent's actions in suspending the Grievant without first issuing a show-cause letter were in direct contravention of the procedural requirements outlined in the Employment Act. 

The Claimant filed a Memorandum of Claim on December 10, 2020, seeking reinstatement or, alternatively, compensation for a grievant employed by the Respondent. The grievant, James Kirubi Mwangi, was employed as a machine attendant on February 2, 2002, and his contract was terminated on November 16, 2018, allegedly due to involvement in an illegal strike.

Issues for Determination:

•     Fairness of Termination:

Whether the termination of the grievant's employment was fair under the provisions of the Employment Act.

•     Entitlement to Benefits:

Whether the grievant is entitled to the benefits claimed, including notice pay, leave days, gratuity, and compensation for loss of employment.

Analysis :

The court observed that a suspension is generally an administrative measure and does not imply that there has been a finding of any misbehaviour or breach of rules by the suspended employee, but merely that an allegation of some impropriety or misconduct has been made against the employee in question.

Court’s Findings

•     Fairness of Termination:

The court found that the Respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedures for termination as outlined in sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act. The grievant was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself, and the Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal.

•     Entitlement to Benefits:

    The court determined that the grievant was entitled to the following benefits:

• Two months' notice pay
•  Days worked
•  Leave travel allowance
•  29 annual leave days
•  Pro-rata leave
•  Gratuity/service pay for 14 years
•  Three months' compensation for loss of employment
•  Ex-gratia payment as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

The total amount awarded was Kshs. 922,687.

Court's holding:

The court held that hearing the employee at the point of issuance of a suspension letter is not mandatory. The suspension of the Grievant without a hearing did not, thus in itself, render the termination unfair, as no such hearing was envisaged at that stage.

Legal Significance

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Employment Act when terminating an employee's contract. It also highlights the enforceability of benefits stipulated in a Collective Bargaining Agreement and the court's role in ensuring that employees receive fair treatment and compensation upon unlawful termination.

Read the full case at here

Section 30 of the Kenyan Small Claims Court Act

Section 30 of the Kenyan Small Claims Court Act allows parties to proceed with their cases by submitting written submissions instead of oral testimony, as long as all parties agree. This means the court can decide the case based on the documents and statements presented. 

Key points about Section 30:

• Written Submissions:

Parties can choose to have their cases decided based on written submissions, eliminating the need for witnesses to testify in court.

• Agreement of Parties:

This process requires the agreement of all parties involved in the proceedings.

• Court's Decision:

The court can then make a decision based on the documents and statements provided.

On 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆: The case of M-Kopa Kenya Limited v Njenga t/a M-Kopo Kastomer Care & Acessories (Civil Suit E403 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 366 (KLR)

M-Kopa Kenya Limited v. John Waweru Njenga t/a M-Kopo Kastomer Care & Accessories
Civil Suit No. E403 of 2023
Judgment Date: January 23, 2025
Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial and Tax Division
Judge: Hon. Justice Peter Mulwa

---

2. Parties Involved:

• Plaintiff: M-Kopa Kenya Limited, an asset-financing and technology services company.
• Defendant: John Waweru Njenga, previously an agent of the plaintiff, operating a competing business under the name “M-Kopo Kastomer Care & Accessories.”

---

3. Facts of the case:

• M-Kopa Kenya Limited owns a registered trademark for "M-Kopa" in Kenya, assigned to it by Mobile Ventures Kenya Ltd in 2015, and renewed in 2021.
• The defendant, a former agent, set up a business named "M-Kopo Kastomer Care & Accessories" using branding nearly identical to M-Kopa’s logo and name.
• The plaintiff alleged the defendant was misleading the public, suggesting affiliation with M-Kopa, thereby infringing on their trademark and engaging in unlawful passing off.

---

4. Legal Issues:

1.      Trademark Infringement: Did the defendant infringe on the plaintiff’s registered trademark "M-Kopa"?

2.      Passing Off: Did the defendant’s conduct amount to passing off their business as that of the plaintiff’s?

3.      Reliefs Sought: Is the plaintiff entitled to injunctive reliefs, damages, and an audit of the defendant’s profits?

---

5. Arguments:

• Plaintiff: Argued that the defendant knowingly used similar branding to deceive customers into thinking they were dealing with M-Kopa or a related entity.
• Defendant: Did not file a defence or appear in court despite being served.

---

6. Legal Principles Applied:

• The court relied on the Trade Marks Act (Cap 506) and cited key case law including:
• Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co. v. Novelty Mfg. Ltd (HCCC No. 746 of 1998): Held that trademark infringement is a tort of strict liability; intention is irrelevant.
• Bidco Africa Ltd v. Fry-Cide Ltd (2022): On the test for deceptive similarity in trademarks.
• Established that similarity in business name, font, and color scheme between "M-Kopo" and "M-Kopa" was likely to confuse the average consumer.

Court's Analysis:

Trademark Infringement: The court noted the striking similarity between "M-Kopo Kastomer Care & Accessories" and "M-Kopa Kenya Limited," observing that the average consumer could easily confuse the two. The defendant's use of the plaintiff's logo without authorization further compounded the likelihood of confusion, constituting trademark infringement.

 

Passing Off: The defendant's actions misled the public into believing that his business was affiliated with or authorized by the plaintiff, thereby engaging in passing off.

 

Legal Precedents: The court cited Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Company v. Novelty Manufacturing Limited (HCCC No. 746 of 1998), emphasizing that trademark infringement is a tort of strict liability, where intention and motive are irrelevant considerations.

---

7. Holding (Court Decision):

The High Court found in favor of the plaintiff and issued the following orders:

a) Permanent Injunction:

Restraining the defendant from:

• Using the mark “M-Kopo” or any similar variation;
• Passing off his business as affiliated with M-Kopa.

b) Mandatory Injunction:

Directing the defendant to:

• Remove, demolish, or destroy any signage, advertising material, or branding using “M-Kopo.”

c) Forensic Audit:

• Ordered to determine profits earned by the defendant using the infringing mark;
• Defendant to pay the plaintiff whatever amount is found due.

d) Costs:

• Awarded to the plaintiff.

---

8. Significance:

This judgment affirms the importance of protecting intellectual property and trademarks in Kenya. It reinforces that brand owners can enforce their rights against infringers even if the infringer is a former agent or affiliate.

This case underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and serves as a precedent for enforcing trademark laws in Kenya. It highlights the need for businesses to be vigilant against unauthorized use of their trademarks and the legal recourse available to safeguard brand identity.