[2020] KEHC 4714 (KLR)
The court held that the High Court at Kakamega is competent to hear and determine the application dated 2nd June 2020, as the High Court retains its jurisdiction regardless of its location. The transfer from Nairobi to Kakamega was made in proper exercise of judicial discretion under Rule 8 of the relevant Practice...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4714 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rev. Humphrey Goren and 19 others; Respondent: Rev. Nathan Ondego and 8 others; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 4 others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 7 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings Back to Nairobi
- Outcome
- application for transfer back to nairobi dismissed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of High Court, Transfer of Proceedings, Practice and Procedure
- 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
Rev. Humphrey Goren and 19 others
Applicant
Rev. Nathan Ondego and 8 others
Respondent
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 4 others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings Back to Nairobi
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court at Kakamega has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application dated 2nd June 2020.
- 2 Whether the matter should be transferred back to the High Court at Nairobi for hearing of the stay application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the High Court at Kakamega is competent to hear and determine the application dated 2nd June 2020, as the High Court retains its jurisdiction regardless of its location. The transfer from Nairobi to Kakamega was made in proper exercise of judicial discretion under Rule 8 of the relevant Practice and Procedure Rules. The applicant's preference for the Nairobi court does not override the legal position that the High Court is one and the same throughout Kenya. The court further noted that any party aggrieved by the transfer order has the right to appeal, but until such an appeal is successful, the Kakamega court remains seized of the matter. The dispute is related to...
Court Disposition
application for transfer back to nairobi dismissed
Orders
- The application to transfer the matter back to Nairobi is dismissed.
- The High Court at Kakamega shall proceed to hear and determine the application dated 2nd June 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020
(Formerly Nairobi HC Constitutional Petition No. 166 of 2020)
REV. HUMPHREY GOREN AND 19 OTHERS........................PETITIONERS
VERSUS
REV. NATHAN ONDEGO AND 8 OTHERS...........................RESPONDENTS
AND
CABINET SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND 4 OTHERS..........INTERESTED PARTIES
RULING
1. The instant cause was initially filed at the High Court at Nairobi, before an order was made at Nairobi for its transfer to the High Court at Kakamega. It was placed before me on 6th June 2020, when I gave directions on service of a Motion on record, dated 2nd June 2020, and fixed the same for mention on 16th June 2020 for directions.
2. When the same was placed before me on 16th June 2020, Mr. Musiega for Dr. Khaminwa for the petitioners, informed me that he had instructions to have the file transferred back to Nairobi since Dr. Khaminwa desired to argue the stay application dated 2nd June 2020 before the Nairobi court, and that the issues raised in that application could not justly be dealt with by the court at Kakamega.
3. Mr. Wasilwa opposed the application. He stated that the matter had been transferred in proper exercise of the discretion given in Rule 8 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013. He submitted that the High Court remains the High Court wherever stationed. Mr. Mokua agreed with him that the High Court remains the High Court wherever it sits.
4. I have had time to peruse the record before me, in terms of the pleadings, applications and other filings, and the notes and rulings of the Judge.
5. The issue of transfer of the matter from Nairobi to Kakamega was canvassed before the Judge, and he delivered a considered opinion. It is within the rights of any party aggrieved to appeal against the transfer order. However, I am not persuaded that I should transfer the matter back to Nairobi for the disposal of the application dated 2nd June 2020. I agree that the High Court remains the High Court wherever it sits. The High Court sitting at Kakamega has the competence to hear and determine that application.
6. As found by the Judge in Nairobi, the dispute herein is related to the dispute in Kakamega HC Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2018, and, therefore, the two shall be disposed of simultaneously.
7. It is so ordered.
RULING IS DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 26th DAY OF June 2020
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE