[2022] KEHC 13541 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any sufficient grounds for the transfer of the suit from the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo. There was no evidence that the Rongo Court lacked jurisdiction or that there was any real, imagined, or perceived bias on the part of the judicial officer who...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13541 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Casmiel Agoro Ogola; Applicant: Joseph Illa Oloo; Applicant: Peter Onyango Oloo; Respondent: Charles Ngare Oloo; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit E002 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of Courts, Perceived Bias, Malicious Prosecution Claims
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Casmiel Agoro Ogola
Applicant
Joseph Illa Oloo
Applicant
Peter Onyango Oloo
Applicant
Charles Ngare Oloo
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order the transfer of Civil Suit No. 14 of 2019 from the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo to another court with jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for transfer, such as lack of jurisdiction or bias.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any sufficient grounds for the transfer of the suit from the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo. There was no evidence that the Rongo Court lacked jurisdiction or that there was any real, imagined, or perceived bias on the part of the judicial officer who heard the criminal case. The court noted that even if there was a perception of bias, the proper procedure would be to file an application for recusal before the concerned judicial officer. Furthermore, the court observed that there were currently two magistrates serving at the Rongo Law Courts, and the applicants could have their matter heard by a different magistrate if...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for transfer of Civil Suit No. 14 of 2019 from the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Agoro Oloo & 2 others v Oloo & another (Civil Suit E002 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 13541 (KLR) (3 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13541 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Migori
Civil Suit E002 of 2021
RPV Wendoh, J
October 3, 2022
Between
Casmiel Agoro Ogola
1st Applicant
Joseph Illa Oloo
2nd Applicant
Peter Onyango Oloo
3rd Applicant
and
Charles Ngare Oloo
1st Respondent
Attorney General
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicants filed the instant Notice of Motion dated 7/6/2021 and filed in court on 14/6/2020 through the firm of H. Obach & Co. Advocates. They seek the following orders;-a.Spent.b.That this Court be pleased to order the transfer of the Civil Suit No. 14 of 2019 at the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo to any other Court with jurisdiction.c.That costs be in the cause.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of Casmiel Agoro one of the applicants. He deponed as follows:-i.That the substratum of the application is that the suit was instituted upon a successful prosecution of a criminal matter Criminal Case No. 178 of 2017, R vs Casmiel Agoro & 2 Others.ii.The accused persons were acquitted by the court under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act.iii.That this matter was handled to its conclusion by the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Rongo.iv.That the plaintiffs in this matter erroneously filed a malicious prosecution suit in the Principal Magistrate’s Court in Rongo but the Court 2 Magistrate has since been transferred and no replacement has been brought.v.That the court sitting in Rongo cannot handle this matter since it handled the criminal matter.vi.There will be no bias on the part of the Magistrate’s court in Migori in trying this matter.vii.That the right to fair hearing is a constitutional right that is enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 to ensure that the due process is followed and fairness is observed while administering justice.
3. The application was not opposed. The respondents were duly served but they did not put in any responses. The applicants further filed submissions dated 6/12/2021.
4. I have duly considered the application and the written submissions. The sole issue for determination is whether this suit should be transferred from Senior Principal Magistrate’s Rongo to Migori Chief Magistrate’s court.
5. The applicants’ contention is that they were acquitted by the Rongo Court in Criminal Case No. 178 of 2017, R vs Casmiel Agoro & 2 Others. Thereafter, they filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 2019 claiming damages for malicious prosecution. It is their further contention that the Rongo Court cannot hear their Civil case as it is the same court which heard the Criminal case.
6. Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act gives this court powers to transfer suits. However, I am at pains to understand the applicants’ reasons on why they want their suit transferred. The application have not demonstrated that the court which they seek an order of transfer the suit from has no jurisdiction. The application have also not demonstrated any real, imagined or perceived biasness on the part of the Judicial Officer who heard the criminal case. Even in the circumstances where there was a perception that the Judicial officer will be biased; the proper way to go about it, is filing an application before the concerned Judicial Officer seeking their recusal.
7. The applicant has also stated that Court 2 is on transfer and there has been no replacement. The position currently is that there are two Magistrates serving the Rongo Law Courts station. There is a Magistrate in court 2 who can hear this case if at all they are not comfortable with the Magistrate who heard the criminal matter to hear their matter.
8. I do find no merits in the instant application. It is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs since the respondents did not participate in these proceedings.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT MIGORI THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2022R. WENDOHJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of;Mr. Ochieng holding brief for Obach for the ApplicantsNo appearance for the RespondentsNyauke Court Assistant