In its judgment, the court declared that Section 12 of the Act excludes personal injury claims, noting that such matters were not contemplated when the Small Claims Court was established.
The court further held that Sections 34 and 38 of the Act, as well as Rule 18 of the Small Claims Court Rules, are not unconstitutional and do not violate the Constitution
However, the judges found that Rule 25 of the Small Claims Court Rules is inconsistent with Article 24 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
As a consequence, the court ordered that all personal injury claims currently pending before the Small Claims Court be transferred to magistrates’ courts with the appropriate jurisdiction, particularly those arising from motor vehicle accidents.
The court declined to award damages and directed that each party bear its own costs.
The judges also ruled that the Small Claims Court Act is not inconsistent with Article 51 of the Constitution, but emphasized that personal injury claims were never intended to be handled by the Small Claims Court.
While the Act outlines the functions of the Small Claims Court to include disputes arising from contracts, monetary claims, and certain tortious liabilities, the court held that personal injury claims fall outside its mandate.
The decision settles the question of whether the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine personal injury claims, with the court finding that it does not.
