[2014] KEHC 4734 (KLR)
The court held that the applicable provision is Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, which requires that a suit be instituted in a court within the local limits of the defendant's residence or where the cause of action arises. Since the defendant resided in Nairobi at the commencement of the suit, the proper court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4734 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fred Ochieng Auma; Respondent: Nicholas Ondego
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 53 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit transferred to Nairobi. Costs awarded to applicant.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Transfer of Suits, Venue of Suit
- 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
Fred Ochieng Auma
Applicant
Nicholas Ondego
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate's Court at Mombasa has jurisdiction to hear the suit given the residence of the defendant.
- 2 Whether the suit should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicable provision is Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, which requires that a suit be instituted in a court within the local limits of the defendant's residence or where the cause of action arises. Since the defendant resided in Nairobi at the commencement of the suit, the proper court with jurisdiction is the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi. The court found that Sections 12 and 13, which relate to immovable property, and Section 14, which relates to wrongs to persons or movable property, do not apply as the claim is for breach of contract. Therefore, the application to transfer the suit from Mombasa to Nairobi was allowed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit transferred to Nairobi. Costs awarded to applicant.
Orders
- Mombasa Civil Suit No. 1128 of 2013 is hereby transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani, Nairobi for disposal.
- The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2014 are awarded to Fred Ochieng Auma.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2014
FRED OCHIENG AUMA ………………..………………………. APPLICANT
V E R S U S
NICHOLAS ONDEGO ………….……………….…………….. RESPONDENT
RULING
Plaintiff sued Defendant in Mombasa Chief Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No. 1128 of 2013 (Magistrate’s case). Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendant appointed him as an agent to secure a buyer for the Defendant’s property in Kisumu. Plaintiff pleaded that Defendant gave him written instructions in that regard and undertook to pay Plaintiff a commission if he secured such a buyer.
Defendant has filed Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2014 where Defendant seeks the transfer of the Magistrate’s case from Chief Magistrate’s Court, Mombasa to Chief Magistrate’s Court, Nairobi. Defendant has based the application on the ground that he works and resides in Nairobi and according to Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, the case should have been filed in Nairobi.
The Defendant admits Plaintiff works and resides in Nairobi but submitted that he had the option of filing the case in either Mombasa, where the Defendant signed the letter appointing him an agent, or in Nairobi where the Defendant resides. He based his above submissions on the provisions of Section 15.
Section 15 provides-
“Subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
the defendant or each of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or
any of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants do not reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution: or
the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.”
That Section however is preceded by Sections 12, 13 and 14 which provide where a suit should be filed. Sections 12 and 13 refer to a claim of a wrong or recovery of immovable property. In that case those Sections provide that a claim shall be filed within the local limits of where the immoveable property is situated. Those Sections do not clearly apply to the subject Magistrate’s case between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim is for breach of contract. Section 14 provides that where the wrong is to a person or moveable property, and the wrong was within the local limits of one Court and Defendant resides in another jurisdiction the suit may be instituted in one of those Courts at the Plaintiff’s option. Again I repeat, Plaintiff’s claim is in contract. It is therefore not a wrong to a person or moveable property.
The Section that addresses the parties case in the Magistrate’s Court is Section 15 reproduced above. Bearing in mind Section 15(a) the Court with the jurisdiction over the Magistrate’s Court case is Nairobi because that is where the Defendant resided at the commencement of the suit.
The Defendant’s application dated 26th February 2014 therefore succeeds. I grant the following orders-
Mombasa Civil Suit No. 1128 of 2013 is hereby transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani, Nairobi for disposal.
The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2014 are awarded to FRED OCHIENG AUMA.
DATED and DELIVERED at MOMBASA this 5TH day of JUNE, 2014.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE