[2024] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant alleged the claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates Court, there was no evidence provided to substantiate the value of the subject matter. The applicant failed to attach the plaint or any documentary proof of the claim's value. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Equity Bank Kenya Ltd; Respondent: Joe Musyimi Mutambu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E059 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Subordinate Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of evidence
- Judges
- FG Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Loan Disputes
- 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
Equity Bank Kenya Ltd
Applicant
Joe Musyimi Mutambu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Subordinate Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer CMCC 8888 of 2018 from the Chief Magistrates Court to itself for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence before the court to support the application for transfer based on pecuniary jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant alleged the claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates Court, there was no evidence provided to substantiate the value of the subject matter. The applicant failed to attach the plaint or any documentary proof of the claim's value. The court held that it could not grant the transfer order without such evidence, as it must independently verify the basis for its jurisdiction and the merits of the application. Consequently, the application was struck out for want of evidence.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of evidence
Orders
- The application dated 27th January 2024 is struck out for want of evidence.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Equity Bank Kenya Ltd v Mutambu (Miscellaneous Civil Application E059 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5385 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (17 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Miscellaneous Civil Application E059 of 2024
FG Mugambi, J
May 17, 2024
Between
Equity Bank Kenya Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Joe Musyimi Mutambu
Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling determines the application dated 27th January 2024 which seeks the transfer of CMCC 8888 of 2018 from the Chief Magistrates Court for hearing and determination before this Court. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Samuel N. Wamaitha on 24th January 2024. It is unopposed despite the respondent having been served as evidenced by the affidavit of service sworn on 14th March 2024 by one George Gikamu Njora.
2. Be that as it may, it is the responsibility of this Court to test the veracity of the averments before it and interrogate the merits of the application before coming to a determination.
Analysis 3. Section 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules is relevant to the application. It provides as follows:“On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court may at any stage—(a)……(b)withdraw any suit or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it, and thereafter—try or dispose of the same. …”
4. It is the applicant’s case that the dispute before the court relates to a loan facility advanced to the respondent by the applicant. The suit herein was filed on 4th October 2018 claiming the sum of Kshs.16,888,588. 72 from the respondent. This amount has since increased to Kshs.22,620,269/= as a result of accrued interest. The applicant notes that this amount is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates Court and therefore seeks to have the matter withdrawn for hearing and determination before this Court.
5. While it is true that the Chief Magistrate’s Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter in which the subject matter exceeds Kshs. 20,000,000/=, I note that the averments by the applicant are totally unsupported. The Court has not had sight of the plaint that instituted the claim in the lower court or any proof of the value of the subject matter of the dispute. As such, it would be remiss of this Court to grant the order sought without such evidence.
Disposition 6. The application dated 27th January 2024 is therefore struck out for want of evidence, with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY 2024. F. MUGAMBIJUDGE