The Small Claims Court a savior, for the haves and have nots as many litigants would term it. Established under the Small Claims Act 2016, the Small Claims Court has brought about many noticeable changes in the judicial arm in enhancing timely service delivery and ensuring justice is served to all. While many would disregard its importance, it is only the ones that walk the halls of justice that attest to its important and timely birth.

With the enactment of the Small Claims Act, it came with the Legal Notice 145 of 2019 which encompasses the Small Claims Procedure and Practice Rules.

The two provide for the fast conclusion of cases with capping the timelines to a maximum of 60 days completion time. The act further caps the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court at one million shillings and below.

On its strengths, first, the lowest court on the land has expedited the trial processes by allowing litigants to prosecute their cases within a period of sixty days in the maximum contrary to other courts in the Judicial system hierarchy which take a much longer period. Due to its mushy nature on rules of evidence as per Section 32 of the Small Claims Act, cases have been completed easier by allowing lay litigants to argue their cases thereby doing away with complex rules of evidence.

Second, the Small Claims Court, through introduction of a unique yet simple manner of filling Claims through specified forms has allowed lay litigants to file the claims in a move to ensure justice is served to all.

Third, its cost effectiveness in court fees has granted litigants access to file claims and at times even prosecute the claims in person. This has specifically allowed representation either in person or by an advocate at affordable fees and rates.

Fourth, Section 12 of the Act, in highlighting the Courts jurisdiction, has allowed litigants a wide purview on Claims which can be brought to court more specifically on money borrowed, goods received and contracts entered into.

Foremost just like any existent thing filed with grace, the Small Claims Court arguably has its fair share of challenges. First, it is no secret that along the corridors of justice, it has been debated and discussed that the simplicity birthed by the Court has opened up the judicial system to abuse in its halls by every tom, dick and harry. It is argued that many litigants have failed to give dialogue a chance even on minor tussles that do not warrant litigation.

Secondly, due to the pecuniary jurisdictional nature of the Claims, there has been an increase in claims thereby creating a backlog of cases sometimes blamed on the insufficiency of judicial officers and resources. This has interfered with the completion period of sixty days (60) with some cases taking as long as six months.

Third, the non-strict nature of evidence rules has sometimes been abused by litigants sometimes leading to adducing of illegally obtained evidence leading to abuse.

Gratitude has been expressed by litigants since the inception of the Small Claims Court which has enabled the judiciary to attain its goals in ensuring access to justice for all without limitations. Despite some pessimistic debates, the Court continues to attain its goals as its order of business dictates.