[2004] KEHC 487 (KLR)
The court found that both the cause of action and the residence of the parties were within Machakos District, and that Kitui court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Since Kitui court lacked jurisdiction, there was effectively no valid suit before it to be transferred. The application for transfer was therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 487 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Kilonzo Katio; Defendant: Marrieta Kanini Musyoki (sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Charles Musyoki Kikumbi)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous 3 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Territorial Jurisdiction, Transfer of Suit, Institution of Suit
- 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
David Kilonzo Katio
Plaintiff
Marrieta Kanini Musyoki (sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Charles Musyoki Kikumbi)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer Kitui Principal Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 32/00 to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos due to territorial jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether Kitui court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the cause of action and the residence of the parties were within Machakos District, and that Kitui court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Since Kitui court lacked jurisdiction, there was effectively no valid suit before it to be transferred. The application for transfer was therefore dismissed as there was no case to transfer from Kitui to Machakos.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for the transfer of the suit is not allowed and is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
6 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CIVIL MISC. APP. NO. 3 ‘B’ OF 2003
DAVID KILONZO KATIO………………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS MARRIETA KANINI MUSYOKI……………………DEFENDANT(sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Charles Musyoki Kikumbi)R U L I N G The Plaintiff/Applicant seeks the transfer of Kitui Principal Magistrate’s Civil case no. 32/00 from Kitui court to chief Magistrate’s court at Machakos. The application was made exparte since the summons in PMCC 32/00 had not yet been served. The reason givenfor the transfer is because of territorial jurisdiction. In the supporting affidavit of Ithuku Advocate, it is deponed that the cause of action arose along Tawa and Wote Road near Nguluni Market and that both the plaintiffs and defendants reside and work in Machakos District.
Under section 18 Civil Procedure Act this court has power to transfer cases from one court to another for good cause. Section 15 Civil Procedure Act provides that every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits where the cause of action wholly or in part arises; where the defendant resides or where the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit resided. We are told that the defendants reside in Machakos. The cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of chief Magistrate’s court Machakos. No reason has been given why the suit was filed in Kitui which had no jurisdiction in the matter. Since Kitui had no jurisdiction to hear that case, it means that there is no case before Kitui court to be transferred to this Chief Magistrate’s court at Machakos.
The application for the transfer of the suit is not allowed and is dismissed.
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 5th day of February, 2004.
R. WENDOH JUDGE