[2016] KEHC 7135 (KLR)
The court found that the marriage in question was solemnized in Meru and that the applicant, who resides in Meru with the minor children, would be better served by having the matter heard there. The court emphasized that the power to transfer suits is intended to facilitate access to justice and that the applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: George Mwongera Mwendameru; Respondent: Loise Gakii
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 70 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- Application for transfer of suit allowed.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Access to Justice, Divorce Proceedings
- 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
George Mwongera Mwendameru
Appellant
Loise Gakii
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer Nairobi CMC Divorce Cause No. 96 of 2014 to Meru Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing and disposal.
- 2 Whether the application for transfer is properly before the court given the applicant's representation status.
- 3 Whether the transfer would prejudice either party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the marriage in question was solemnized in Meru and that the applicant, who resides in Meru with the minor children, would be better served by having the matter heard there. The court emphasized that the power to transfer suits is intended to facilitate access to justice and that the applicant's limited means and residence in Meru are relevant considerations. The respondent's concerns about prejudice were dismissed, as advocates are licensed to practice throughout Kenya, and no substantial prejudice was demonstrated. The court held that the application was properly before it, regardless of the applicant's representation status, and that the ends of justice would be...
Court Disposition
Application for transfer of suit allowed.
Orders
- Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Divorce Cause No. 96 of 2014 is transferred to Meru Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and disposal.
- Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO70 of 2015
GEORGE MWONGERA MWENDAMERU.......................APPELLANT
Versus
LOISE GAKII.....................................................…………RESPONDENT
RULING
Transfer of Suit
[1] This Court is being asked through the Motion dated 5th October, 2015 to transfer Nbi CMC Divorce Cause No 96 of 2014 to Meru Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and disposal. The reasons given for applying are:
(1) That the applicant lives in Meru with the children of the marriage herein who are minors.
(2) That the marriage to be dissolved was solemnized in Meru.
(3) That the applicant is of less means and by going to Nairobi for the divorce cause only puts her to great expense which is unnecessary in the circumstances.
[2] The Respondent opposed the application through his Replying Affidavit sworn on 19th October, 2015. Of importance, he averred that at the time of the filing of the Divorce cause herein, both parties were living in Nairobi home, thus, the court in Nairobi is competent to try the cause. He also took issue with the fact that the Applicant has applied in person when she has advocates in the main cause, i.e. M/s. Owaga & Associates Advocates, and whose appointment has not been terminated as per Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They were therefore of the view that she cannot file this application for transfer of the cause except through the said advocates. The Respondent nonetheless deposed to the fact that he has been informed by his advocate that the applicant’s advocates are the major cause of delay in the divorce cause for failing to attend court for purposes of taking a date. And when a date is taken, the said advocate applies for adjournments on the basis of the Applicant’s inability to attend court. He further stated that the Applicant has not even annexed receipts to show how many times she attended court so as to claim that she is being subjected to unnecessary costs in defending the cause in Nairobi. According to the Respondent, it is him who will suffer prejudice by the transfer of the cause because his advocates are situated in Nairobi. For these reasons, he beseeched court to reject the request for the transfer of the divorce cause to Meru.
[3] Parties filed submissions amplifying their respective standpoints I have stated above either for or against transfer of the divorce cause herein.
DETERMINATION
[4] I have carefully considered the application, the reasons given for applying as well as the rival submissions by the parties in this matter. The High Court, as a superior court, has the power to transfer causes from one subordinate court to another for hearing and disposal. The power serves an important purpose in law: to attain the ends of and facilitate access to justice. That is why the court can invoke and exercise the power suo moto. And, therefore, if transferring a matter is expedient, lawful and an enabler of access to justice, the court will not be prevented from doing so simply because the application has not been made by the advocate on record or because the Respondent’s advocate is situated outside the proposed place of hearing. Now, I should only ask: Are conditions for transfer of suit present in this case? First, it has not been denied that the marriage to be dissolved was solemnized in Meru; that is the basic and important consideration in this application for transfer. Other considerations include the fact that the applicant also lives in Meru, and with the issues of the marriage who are minors. In these circumstances, although not invariable consideration, the fact of the Applicant is of a lesser means also becomes relevant. For all purposes and intents, the ends of and access to justice would be served by transferring the matter in question from Nairobi to Meru for hearing and determination. I do not see any prejudice that will be visited upon the Respondent especially given the fact that advocates in Kenya are licenced to practice anywhere within the Republic of Kenya including Meru County. Accordingly, I order that the Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Divorce Cause No. 96 of 2014 shall be transferred to Meru Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and disposal. Each party shall bear own costs of the application. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court at Meru this 19th January, 2016
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Applicant
Mwenda/Mark – C/c