[2025] KEHC 9578 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9578 (KLR)

The court found that both Nyando and Siaya courts have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the parties' places of residence and the cause of action were not clearly established to be exclusive to either location. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding when she left the matrimonial home or when she remarried, making it difficult for the court to determine the proper venue based on the cause of action. The court noted that the parties had already participated in pre-trial directions and fixed the hearing date at Nyando Law Courts, and that transferring the case at this stage would cause unnecessary delay and inconvenience. Considering the overriding objective of...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9578 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: EAO; Respondent: DOA
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E018 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DK Kemei
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of Courts, Best Interest of Child
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Transfer of Suits Jurisdiction of Courts Best Interest of Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EAO

Applicant

DOA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Children’s case No. E010/2022 pending at Nyando Law Courts should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Siaya for trial and disposal.
  2. 2 Whether the suit was instituted in the court of proper jurisdiction as per the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer is in the best interest of the minor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both Nyando and Siaya courts have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the parties' places of residence and the cause of action were not clearly established to be exclusive to either location. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding when she left the matrimonial home or when she remarried, making it difficult for the court to determine the proper venue based on the cause of action. The court noted that the parties had already participated in pre-trial directions and fixed the hearing date at Nyando Law Courts, and that transferring the case at this stage would cause unnecessary delay and inconvenience. Considering the overriding objective of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Applicant’s application dated 23/5/2025 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.