[2008] KEHC 95 (KLR)
The court found that although both the Meru and Nairobi High Courts have jurisdiction, the facts that the respondent was engaged and terminated in Nairobi and that the applicant's witnesses are based in Nairobi justify the transfer for convenience and to avoid unnecessary expense. The court also determined that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 95 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Gitonga Njagi; Respondent: The Co-operative Insurance of Kenya Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit transferred to Nairobi High Court.
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of High Court, Venue of Trial
- 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
Edward Gitonga Njagi
Applicant
The Co-operative Insurance of Kenya Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court at Meru should transfer HCCC No. 27 of 2005 to Nairobi for trial and determination.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for transfer based on convenience and expense.
- 3 Whether the previous application in Nairobi HC. Misc. Application No. 950 of 2005 affects the present application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although both the Meru and Nairobi High Courts have jurisdiction, the facts that the respondent was engaged and terminated in Nairobi and that the applicant's witnesses are based in Nairobi justify the transfer for convenience and to avoid unnecessary expense. The court also determined that the previous application in Nairobi was withdrawn and not determined on merit, and thus does not bar the present application. The court exercised its discretion to order the transfer of the suit to Nairobi for hearing and final determination.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit transferred to Nairobi High Court.
Orders
- The suit Meru HCCC No. 27 of 2005 is transferred to Nairobi High Court for hearing and final determination.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 2 OF 2006
EDWARD GITONGA NJAGI ……………….………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE OF KENYA LTD. .…..... RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application for the transfer of Meru HCCC No. 27 of 2005 from the High Court at Meru to Nairobi for trial and final determination on the grounds that the applicant’s registered office is at Nairobi and the letter of employment of the respondent, the subject matter of the suit was executed and terminated at Nairobi. That if the hearing of the suit proceeds at Meru the applicant will be subjected to great expense.
It is finally averred that the applicant’s intended witnesses work and live at Nairobi. The respondent has opposed the application arguing that the same has been brought in bad faith as the applicant has no valid reason for seeking the transfer of the case to Nairobi while both courts have equal jurisdiction. He has further deposed that a similar application as the present one was made by the applicant in the High Court at Nairobi and dismissed in Nairobi HC. Misc. Application No. 950 of 2005. Regarding the last averment, the applicant confirms that Nairobi HC. Misc. Application No. 950 of 2005 was withdrawn and not dismissed.
I have duly considered the foregoing rival arguments and hold the following view on the matter. Although the High Court, in terms of Section 60(1) of the Constitution, has unlimited original jurisdiction both in civil and criminal matters, its jurisdiction in civil matters must be exercised as provided for under the Civil Procedure Act, namely sections 14 and 15 thereof. It is only in the compliance with the above procedure that an orderly litigation can be achieved.
There is no dispute in this application that the respondent was engaged by the applicant at Nairobi and further that the engagement was terminated at Nairobi. It is also common ground that both courts (Nairobi and Meru High Courts) are seized of the necessary jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties.
In the exercise of the court’s discretion and taking into consideration the foregoing it is ordered that this suit be and is hereby transferred to Nairobi High Court for hearing and final determination.
I am also satisfied that HC. Misc. Application No. 950 of 2005 was not heard and determined on merit. Costs in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 7th Day of November 2008.
W. OUKO
JUDGE