[2016] KEHC 7307 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 7307 (KLR)

The court found that both the Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi and the Wajir Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter. However, considering the convenience of the parties, the location of advocates, offices, witnesses, and the examining doctor—all in Nairobi—the court determined that transferring the suit to Wajir...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 7307 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abdi Noor Mohammed Sheikh; Defendant: Tripple Eight Limited; Defendant: Wajir County Council
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 226 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Jurisdiction of Magistrates Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Transfer of Suit Substitution of Parties Jurisdiction of Magistrates Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdi Noor Mohammed Sheikh

Plaintiff

Tripple Eight Limited

Defendant

Wajir County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Wajir.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant, Wajir County Council, should be substituted with County Government of Wajir.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi and the Wajir Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter. However, considering the convenience of the parties, the location of advocates, offices, witnesses, and the examining doctor—all in Nairobi—the court determined that transferring the suit to Wajir would not serve the objectives of expeditious and cost-effective justice. The court also held that the substitution of the 2nd Defendant was not a matter for the High Court at this stage, and that an appropriate application should be made to the Lower Court. Consequently, the application for transfer and substitution was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant

Orders

  • The Plaintiff/Applicant’s application dated 22nd May 2015 is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.