[2019] KEHC 6891 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would be suffered if the suit remained in Nairobi. The suit was originally filed in Nairobi at the plaintiff's instance, and both parties' advocates, as well as the 1st defendant's headquarters, are based in Nairobi. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6891 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Annet Nalugwa; Respondent: Madison Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Joab Guya Ndonga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 334 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the defendants
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Territorial Jurisdiction, Court Discretion, Costs Award
- 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
Annet Nalugwa
Applicant
Madison Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Joab Guya Ndonga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from the High Court Nairobi to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Homabay.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer prejudice if the suit remains in Nairobi.
- 3 Whether the principles of justice, convenience, and fairness warrant transfer of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would be suffered if the suit remained in Nairobi. The suit was originally filed in Nairobi at the plaintiff's instance, and both parties' advocates, as well as the 1st defendant's headquarters, are based in Nairobi. The court emphasized that the case was ready for hearing and that transferring it would only serve to delay its resolution, contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act. The principles of justice, convenience, and fairness did not justify a transfer, and the application was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The application to transfer the suit to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Homabay is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 334 OF 2015
ANNET NALUGWA .................................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MADISON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED......1ST DEFENANT/RESPONDENT
JOAB GUYA NDONGA ............................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 28th July, 2018 seeking an order that this case be transferred from the High Court Nairobi to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Homabay. It is brought under Sections 3A, 14, 18 and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and supported by an affidavit sworn by the advocate for the plaintiff.
The application is opposed and grounds of opposition have been filed on behalf of the 1st defendant alongside an affidavit sworn by the legal manager of the 1st defendant. The reasons given therefor are that the cause of action arose in Homabay where the plaintiff resides and so does the 2nd defendant. It is further stated that the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Homabay has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Counsel for the parties herein have filed submissions which I have read.
This court has jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant the orders sought by the plaintiff. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties herein. Ordinarily a suit is not filed at the convenience of the plaintiff but that of the defendant. It has not been contested that the advocates for the parties reside and practice in Nairobi. There is also not a very serious contest that the 1st defendant has its headquarters in Nairobi. It is also not disputed that the court in Nairobi has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
In considering whether or not to transfer a suit the court has a duty to consider the principles of justice, convenience and fairness to the parties. – see Lewis Nyakundi vs. United Touring Company (K) Limited (2204) e KLR, Benard Onkundi Otungo & 5 Others vs. Creek Marketing & Development Limited (2017) e KLR and Sustainable Management Services vs. New Mitaboni F.C.S. (2017) e KLR.Underlying all these is the subject of costs that comes into play at the conclusion of the hearing.
The applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of this court what prejudice she will suffer if the suit remains in Nairobi. I must observe that it was at the instance of the plaintiff that this case was filed in Nairobi. I hasten to add that the case is ready for hearing and any other application is likely to delay the matter further.
It is instructive that Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act have been left out of the cited provisions of law in this application. Whether this was inadvertent is hard to say, but it is the duty of the court to observe that the overriding objective is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and or affordable resolution of civil disputes under the Act. In so doing, it is the duty of the court to invoke those objectives and it will not be in the interest of justice to transfer a case that is ready for hearing as in this particular case. I see no justification whatsoever to allow the application which is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 4th Day of April, 2019.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE