[2004] KEHC 2137 (KLR)
The court found that, after considering the relevant statutory provisions and persuasive authorities, it agreed with the reasoning in Guardian Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd, which held that the court does not have jurisdiction to transfer a suit from Kisumu to Nairobi under the cited provisions. The application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2137 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Grandways Ventures Limited; Defendant: Reliance Bank Ltd (In Liquidation); Defendant: Southern Credit Finance Bank
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 272 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of Court, 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
Grandways Ventures Limited
Plaintiff
Reliance Bank Ltd (In Liquidation)
Defendant
Southern Credit Finance Bank
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court at Kisumu has jurisdiction to order transfer of the suit to Nairobi for trial.
- 2 Whether Order XLVI rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 12 of the Civil Procedure Act confer such jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, after considering the relevant statutory provisions and persuasive authorities, it agreed with the reasoning in Guardian Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd, which held that the court does not have jurisdiction to transfer a suit from Kisumu to Nairobi under the cited provisions. The application for transfer was therefore dismissed as the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant the order sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to transfer the suit to Nairobi is dismissed.
- The defendants shall pay the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPULIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO. 272 OF 2001
GRANDWAYS VENTURES LIMITED ============ PLAINTIFF -VERSUS
RELIANCE BANK LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) SOUTHERN CREDIT FINANCE BANK =========== DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
In this motion on notice dated 12th March 2004 the defendants seek an order of this Court that the proper place for trial of it is Nairobi. The application is indicated to be brought under Order XLVI rule 5 (1) and (2) of Civil Procedure rules and Section 3A and 12 of Civil Procedure Act; and is supported by some grounds on the body of the motion. The plaintiff opposes the application relying on some grounds of opposition filed on its behalf on 19th April, 2004.
The issue before me is whether this Court has jurisdiction in its direction to order that this case can be heard in Nairobi instead of Kisumu where it was filed in 1997 as sought by the defendants. As indicated above the defendants cited Order XLVI rule 5 as conferring this Court jurisdiction.
The defendants rely on the decision of P. N. Waki J (as he then was) in Mombasa HCCC no. 477 of 1998 – Jazira Agencies Nairobi Ltd –Vs- Dolphins Stationers Ltd where he ordered that the case be transferred to Nairobi High Court Registry from Mombasa Registry. However, the plaintiff in opposing the application relied on the decision of Onyango Otieno J. (as he then was) inHigh Court at Nairobi Milimani Misc. Civil Application no. 40 of 2000 – Guardian Bank Ltd -vs- Norlake Investments Ltd where the learned Judge after reviewing Sections 12, 15 and 17 of Civil Procedure Act and Order XLVI rule 5 of Civil Procedure Rules declined to transfer a case from Kisumu High Court Registry to Nairobi High Court Registry as prayed.
I have carefully perused the rulings of the two Judges and am alive of the fact that they are only of persuasive authority. However, I agree entirely with the views of Onyango Otieno J. (as he was) expressed in the said ruling. I therefore dismiss the application with costs.
Dated and delivered this 24th May, 2004.
B. K. TANUI
JUDGE