[2010] KEHC 2622 (KLR)
The court found that the application for transfer was unopposed, as the respondent neither filed a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition, and failed to provide adequate reasons for their absence or arrange alternative representation. The grounds advanced by the applicant were deemed sufficient, as the cause...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2622 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Faith Elizabeth Njeru; Defendant: Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 268 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application for transfer granted as prayed. Costs in the cause.
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Faith Elizabeth Njeru
Plaintiff
Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant the transfer of SRMCC No. 154 of 2009 from Kangema Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court to Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi for hearing and determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for transfer was unopposed, as the respondent neither filed a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition, and failed to provide adequate reasons for their absence or arrange alternative representation. The grounds advanced by the applicant were deemed sufficient, as the cause of action arose within Nairobi and both parties reside and conduct business there, making the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant the transfer as prayed.
Court Disposition
Application for transfer granted as prayed. Costs in the cause.
Orders
- SRMCC No. 154 of 2009 is transferred from Kangema Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court to Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi for hearing and 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 NAIROBI (MILIMANICOMMERCIAL COURTS)
Miscellaneous Case 268 of 2010
FAITH ELIZABETH NJERU....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BLUE SHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD............................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is for the transfer of SRMCC No. 154 of 2009 from Kangema Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court to Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi for full hearing and determination thereof. It is made by the Defendant/Applicant by notice of motion dated 16th March, 2010 and is brought under Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 3A, 15, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act; and all other enabling provisions of the law.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Jane Aluoch Abudho, Advocate, and is based on the grounds that the declaratory suit herein arose from Milimani CMCC No. 10931B of 2005 whose subject matter was a road accident along Valley Road in Nairobi within the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani; and that the Defendant/Applicant and the Plaintiff/Respondent reside and carry on their business in Nairobi within the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi.
The application was filed under a certificate of urgency on 16th March, 2010, and was fixed for hearing inter partes on 24th March, 2010. It was then served on the firm of Ndumu Kimani & Co., Advocates for the Respondents, on 18th March, 2010. They received the requisite documents under protest, stating that their Mr. Kimani would be engaged outside Nairobi. They stated neither the actual place where he would be engaged, nor the nature of his engagement. They also did not file any replying affidavit or grounds of opposition. They had sufficient time to instruct another Advocate to hold their brief but they did not do so. In these circumstances, I find that the application is not opposed and that the orders sought ought to be granted on the strength of the grounds stated on the face of the application.
Prayer 1 of the application by Notice of Motion dated 16th March, 2010 is accordingly granted as prayed.
Costs in the cause.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 29th day of April, 2010.
L. NJAGI
JUDGE