[2012] KEHC 446 (KLR)
The court held that for a suit to be transferred from one court to another, the originating court must have had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at the time the suit was filed. Since the applicant admitted that the magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction due to the value of the subject matter exceeding...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 446 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Nyathira; Respondent: Lucky Summer Estate Co. Ltd; Respondent: Stephen Ruto Iyoba; Respondent: Jane Tallam; Respondent: Mercy Nyambura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 380 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Transfer of Suits, Land Ownership 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
Esther Nyathira
Applicant
Lucky Summer Estate Co. Ltd
Respondent
Stephen Ruto Iyoba
Respondent
Jane Tallam
Respondent
Mercy Nyambura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can transfer a suit from the magistrate's court where the magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction ab initio.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order transferring CMCC No. 1508 of 2007 to the High Court for hearing and determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that for a suit to be transferred from one court to another, the originating court must have had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at the time the suit was filed. Since the applicant admitted that the magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction due to the value of the subject matter exceeding its monetary limit, the suit was a nullity ab initio in that court. Consequently, the High Court could not grant an order to transfer a suit that was improperly before the subordinate court. The application was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to transfer CMCC No. 1508 of 2007 from the Chief Magistrate's Court Nairobi to the High Court at Milimani Environment and Land Court Division is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
71 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Miscellaneous Civil Application 380 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Rockwell","serif";} </style> <![endif]
Editorial Summary
1. Civil application
2. Subject of Subordinate Court Case
LAND
2. 1 Land buying company.
2. 2 Land ownership
portion of Nairobi/block/113/153
2. 3 Suit filed in magistrate’s court on
27th February 2007.
3. Application dated 4th July 2012
3. 1 That CMCC 1508/07 be transferred from the
Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi to
High Court at Milimani ELC Division
for hearing and final determination.
3. 2 Reasons:
i) Claim for land under the Registered
Lands Act Cap 300 worth in excess
of 3 million.
ii) Only the High Court – a court of competent
jurisdiction which can try matter.
iii) Interest of jurisdiction.
4. Held:
4. 1 Where the subordinate court lacks jurisdiction
the suit cannot be transferred.
4. 2 Application dismissed.
5. Statute Law:
Civil Procedure Act
Section 18
Order 12 r 2(3) Civil Procedure Rules.
6. Case Law:
Kagenyi – Vs – Musiramo & Another
(1968) EA 43
7. Advocates:
i)J.M. Mwangi instructed by M/s Irungu Mwangi Nganga T.T. & Co Advocates for applicant present
ii)E.N. Njue instructed by M/s E.N. Njue & Co Advocates forrespondent – absent
iii)1st and 2nd respondent absent
ESTHER NYATHIRA ……………………….....…...…….… APPLICANT
VERSUS
LUCKY SUMMER ESTATE CO. LTD
STEPHEN RUTO IYOBA
JANE TALLAM
MERCY NYAMBURA ……….……….…...……………… RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
I.INTRODUCTION
1. On the 27th February 2007, the applicant/plaintiff filed suit in the magistrate’s court seeking orders of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her quite possession of parcel of land title Nairobi/Block113/153. She also prayed for the eviction of the 2nd defendant/respondent from the said land.
2. She then realized five years after filing suit that the parcel of land was worth more than Ksh. 3 million in value. This meant that the magistrate court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as their jurisdiction would exceed Ksh. 3 million.
3. On the 6th July 2012 she filed an application seeking this court orders that:
“Suit No. CMCC No. 1508 of 2007 be … transferred from the Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi to the High Court at Milimani Environment Land Court Division at Nairobi for hearing and formal determination.”
IIPROCEDURE
4. On the day called out for hearing, the respondents 1 – 4 were absent. The matter was called out outside court. The application was heard exparte under Order 12 r 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
IIISUBMISSIONS
5. The applicant submitted that the suit be transferred. According to her application, this is because the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction.
IVFINDINGS
6. Where a suit is transferred from one court to the other, it cannot be so transferred unless that suit had in the firs instance had been brought to a court which in the first place had jurisdiction to try the said suit.
7. As the applicant informs the court, the magistrate’s court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. It is unlikely that such a suit may be transferred to the High Court.
8. Part of the claim the applicant wants is to have the purchase price refunded to her, in an alternative prayer, possibly at the market rate. The sum would be more than anticipated. Therefore the wish to have the suit in the High Court.
9. 9.I hereby find that the application is refused and dismissed. The case law of Kagenyi – Vs – Musiramo & Another (1968) EA 43 refers.
DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
iv)J.M. Mwangi instructed by M/s Irungu Mwangi Nganga T.T. & Co Advocates for applicant present
v)E.N. Njue instructed by M/s E.N. Njue & Co Advocates forrespondent – absent
vi)1st and 2nd respondent absent