[2004] KEHC 1482 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the evidence provided, the applicant has an office in Mombasa, which qualifies as a subordinate office under Section 15(c) Explanation (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the respondent worked in Mombasa and the cause of action is connected to that location, and given the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1482 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Farmers Choice Limited; Respondent: Martin M. Mutunga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 1404 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction, 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
Farmers Choice Limited
Applicant
Martin M. Mutunga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit Mombasa PMCC No. 2928 of 2002 should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Milimani for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the existence of the applicant's office in Mombasa justifies the suit being heard in Mombasa.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the evidence provided, the applicant has an office in Mombasa, which qualifies as a subordinate office under Section 15(c) Explanation (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the respondent worked in Mombasa and the cause of action is connected to that location, and given the respondent's opposition to the transfer, there was no sufficient basis to disturb the suit's current venue. The application for transfer was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 10th November 2003 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1404 OF 2003
FARMERS CHOICE LIMITED…………………… ……………APPLICANT
VERSUS
MARTIN M. MUTUNGA …………………………………..…RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The issue here is whether MombasaPMCC NO. 2928 of 2002, Martin Mutunga vs. Farmers Choice Limited should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Milimani for hearing and determination.
2. The Plaintiff in that suit resides in Mombasa and previously worked in the same place for the Applicant (the Defendant in the lower court). The Applicant on the other hand, has its headquarters in Kahawa, off Kamiti Road, Nairobi and it says that all its witnesses are also in Nairobi. It also claims that the contract, subject of that suit was executed in Nairobi and therefore the same ought to be adjudicated upon in Nairobi.
3. The Respondent in the instant Application claims that he executed his acceptance to be employed by the Applicant at the Nyali Beach Hotel, Mombasa. The cause of action arose there. He also says that he worked in Mombasa throughout his employment and he had an office there. He exhibited his business card indicating that he was the Applicant’s Coast Salesman and he was based at the “Mombasa Office, P. O. Box 34060, Tel (011) 471303/309, Fax (011) 486276. ”
4. In his view the matter ought to be concluded in Mombasa.
5. I have read the Application and the response to it. I note that Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act allows the Plaintiff the option of choosing to sue where the Defendant commits an act within the jurisdiction of one court, in that court, but where the Defendant resides in another, he can also sue there. I have no way of telling where the contract of employment was signed, what with the parties saying the opposite of each other on the issue. However, I am certain that the Applicant has an office in Mombasa based on what I gathered from the Respondents Replying Affidavit and the Applicant’s counsel’s submissions. That being the case, Section 15 (c) explanation (2) allows a suit to be filed where a corporation has a subordinate place. The Mombasa office of the Applicant is such an office.
6. As the Respondent is not agreeable to the transfer, I see no basis for disturbing his suit. The Applicant should claim any attendant costs if at all depending on the outcome of the suit, after due hearing.
7. I hereby dismiss the Application dated 10th November 2003. I shall however make no orders as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of February 2004
I. LENAOLA
Ag. JUDGE
13. 2.2004
Before Lenaola Ag. J.
Amos CC
Ruling read in the presence of:
Mwangi holding brief for Mwicigi for the Applicant
No appearance for the Respondent
I. LENAOLA
Ag. JUDGE