[2014] KEHC 262 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's claim that all parties agreed the value of the subject matter exceeded the Chief Magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction was not supported, as the respondents vehemently denied such agreement. The court emphasized that jurisdiction must be established on the basis of evidence and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 262 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harriet N'Thira M'Rutere; Respondent: Stephen Gitonga; Respondent: Silas Kimathi Kiumbe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 1 April 2014
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Valuation of Subject Matter
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harriet N'Thira M'Rutere
Applicant
Stephen Gitonga
Respondent
Silas Kimathi Kiumbe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine CM 369 of 2010 at Meru.
- 2 Whether the suit should be withdrawn from the Chief Magistrate's Court and transferred to the Environment and Land Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's claim that all parties agreed the value of the subject matter exceeded the Chief Magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction was not supported, as the respondents vehemently denied such agreement. The court emphasized that jurisdiction must be established on the basis of evidence and pleadings, not on unsubstantiated assertions. Since the applicant failed to provide a valuation report or sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, and given the respondents' denial, the application for transfer was dismissed. The suit CM 369 of 2010 was ordered to proceed in the lower court, with costs of the application to abide the outcome of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for withdrawal and transfer of CM 369 of 2010 to the Environment and Land Court is dismissed.
- Costs of the application shall be in the main cause in the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISC APPLICATION 69 OF 2013
HARRIET N'THIRA M'RUTERE............................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN GITONGA..........................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
SILAS KIMATHI KIUMBE....................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This application is dated 24th September, 2013 and seeks orders:
1. That this honourable court be pleased to order the withdrawal of CM 369 of 2010 at Meru and Order it to be transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and disposal.
2. That costs of this application do abide the outcome of the main suit.
Mr. Gikunda, the plaintiff's advocate seeks time to file a valuation report. In the plaint filed at the Chief Magistrate's court, the two agreements mentioned amount to about Kshs, 700,000/-. In his application, the plaintiff states that all parties are in agreement that the value of the subject matter exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate. The defendants vehemently deny this assertion and insist that suit No. CM 369 of 2010 at Meru should be heard by the lower court.
The overiding objective of this court is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and accessible resolution of disputes. It is clear that one of the grounds supporting the application has been denied by the parties who it is claimed were in agreement therewith.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the application. Costs shall be in the Main cause in the lower court. CM 369 of 2010 should be heard and determined in the lower court.
It is so ordered..
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 1st day of April, 2014 in the presence of:
Miss E. G. Mwangi for 1st Respondent
Miss Thibaru for 2nd Respondent
Otieno h/b Gikunda Anampiu for Plaintiff.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE