[2008] KEHC 1346 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling or overwhelming reasons to justify the transfer of the suit from Nairobi to Kisumu. The High Court's jurisdiction is not territorially restricted in the same way as subordinate courts, and the convenience of the parties and advocates favored retaining...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1346 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Crossley Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Nagendra Saxena; Defendant: John Gitau Kimani t/a Jogi Auctioneers; Defendant: Mwani Sugar Mills Ltd; Defendant: Mwani Sugar Co. (1989) Ltd (in receivership)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 459 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of High Court, Territorial Jurisdiction, Pecuniary 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
Crossley Holdings Ltd
Plaintiff
Nagendra Saxena
Defendant
John Gitau Kimani t/a Jogi Auctioneers
Defendant
Mwani Sugar Mills Ltd
Defendant
Mwani Sugar Co. (1989) Ltd (in receivership)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer the suit from Nairobi to Kisumu High Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided compelling reasons for the transfer of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling or overwhelming reasons to justify the transfer of the suit from Nairobi to Kisumu. The High Court's jurisdiction is not territorially restricted in the same way as subordinate courts, and the convenience of the parties and advocates favored retaining the suit in Nairobi. Therefore, the application to transfer the suit was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 16th September 2008 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 459 of 2008
CROSSLEY HOLDINGS LTD………..….................................……...…PLAINTIFF
- VERSUS –
NAGENDRA SAXENA….............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JOHN GITAU KIMANI T/A JOGI AUCTIONEERS….….....…..2ND DEFENDANT
MWANI SUGAR MILLS LTD……...................................……….3RD DEFENDANT
MWANI SUGAR CO. (1989) LTD IN RECEIVERSHIP………4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
It is clear to this court that this application lacks merit. Section 60of the Constitution grants this court unlimited jurisdiction, both territorially and pecuniary. Unless there is a compelling reason, this court cannot transfer a suit from one court to the other. Mr. Otieno pleads that the subject matter of the suit, the suit property, is within the geographical jurisdiction of the High Court sitting at Kisumu. He has also submitted that it would be to the convenience of the parties if the suit is heard and determined at Kisumu. All the other parties to this suit are of contrary view. They insist that it would be convenient for both the litigants and their advocates for this suit to be heard and determined at the place it was filed i.e. Nairobi.
I agree with the submissions made by the respondents. The applicant has placed no compelling or overwhelming reason to persuade this court to order the transfer this suit from this court to the High court sitting at Kisumu. I think the basis of the applicants’ application is informed by their understanding of the geographical restriction placed in respect cases filed in the subordinate courts by the Civil Procedure Act. The same restriction does not apply to the High Court. Although this court has jurisdiction to transfer this suit to any court in the country, in the circumstances of this application, no sufficient grounds have been placed before this court to enable such a transfer.
The notice of motion dated the 16th September 2008 lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE