[2014] KEHC 4105 (KLR)
The High Court found that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim of Kshs. 14,405,000, as its jurisdiction is capped at Kshs. 7 million under section 5 of the Magistrate's Court Act. Since the counterclaim exceeded this limit, the subordinate court could not lawfully...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4105 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Centurion System Limited; Applicant: Kevit Desai; Defendant: KGT (UK) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit for Want of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Counterclaim, Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Centurion System Limited
Applicant
Kevit Desai
Applicant
KGT (UK) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit for Want of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim of Kshs. 14,405,000/=.
- 2 Whether the suit should be withdrawn from the subordinate court and transferred to the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim of Kshs. 14,405,000, as its jurisdiction is capped at Kshs. 7 million under section 5 of the Magistrate's Court Act. Since the counterclaim exceeded this limit, the subordinate court could not lawfully proceed with the matter. The High Court therefore held that it was appropriate and necessary to transfer the suit, including the counterclaim, to the High Court, which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. The application for transfer was allowed, and the costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The suit in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Case No. 5875 of 2012 is withdrawn and transferred to the High Court for hearing and final disposal.
- The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL &ADMIRALTY DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2014
CENTURION SYSTEM LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1ST APPLICANT
KEVIT DESAI :::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
KGT (UK) LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Notice of Motion before me is dated 11th March 2014 and filed in Court on 12th March 2014. It is expressed to be brought under Order 51 Rules 1, 10 (1) and 13 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as sections 3, 3a and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants seek for the following orders:-
That Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Case No. 5875 of 2012 between the Applicants and the Respondent be ordered withdrawn and transferred to this Honourable Court for hearing and final disposal.
The Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this application.
The application is based on the grounds stated on the face of the application and is supported by the affidavit of Allan George Njogu Kamau, an Advocate, sworn on 11th March 2014.
Briefly, the Applicants were sued by the Respondent in the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Milimani Commercial Courts Civil Case No. 5875 of 2012 vide a Plaint dated 12th September 2012. The Applicants then filed their statement of Defence together with their counterclaim on 17th October 2012. It is deponed by the Advocate, that in the Counterclaim the Applicants demands from the Respondent a sum in the order of US$ 167,500 which at current market rates translates to a sum of Kshs. 14,405,000/=. He further depones that the subordinate Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said counterclaim and hence the entire suit.
It is therefore the Applicants’ case that it is imperative that the said suit be withdrawn from the subordinate Court and transferred to this Honourable Court for hearing and final disposal. The Advocate states that he already drew the attention of the Respondent’s Advocates to the lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate Court. He further states that the said Advocates responded indicating that they had no objection to having the case in the subordinate court withdrawn and transferred to this Court.
The Respondent did not file any response to the current application and therefore the same is not opposed.
I have considered the application as well as the supporting affidavit. I therefore take the following view of the matter. The subordinate Court indeed has no pecuniary jurisdiction to determine the current suit with a Counterclaim of about Kshs. 14,405,000/=. The Magistrate’s Court Act (cap. 10) caps the pecuniary Jurisdiction of a Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kshs. 7 million; See section 5 of the Act.In the circumstances it is appropriate to transfer the suit in the Magistrate’s court to this Honourable Court which has jurisdiction.
The upshot is that the Applicants’ Notice of Motion filed on 12th March 2014 is allowed. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
DATED, READ AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
PRESENT:
No appearance for Applicants
No appearance for Defendant
Teresia – Court Clerk