[2006] KEHC 2131 (KLR)
The court found that although the subordinate court had jurisdiction when the suit was first filed, subsequent actions by the respondent—specifically, obtaining title to the suit property and necessitating amendment of the pleadings—altered the substratum of the suit and resulted in the lower court losing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2131 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane Wanjira Kamau; Respondent: Musa K. Kipkios
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 491 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 transferred to the High Court for hearing and determination.
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Amendment of Pleadings, Allotment of Land
- 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
Jane Wanjira Kamau
Applicant
Musa K. Kipkios
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 to itself for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the subordinate court lost jurisdiction due to amendment of pleadings and change in the substratum of the suit.
- 3 Whether the suit was initially filed in a court with competent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the subordinate court had jurisdiction when the suit was first filed, subsequent actions by the respondent—specifically, obtaining title to the suit property and necessitating amendment of the pleadings—altered the substratum of the suit and resulted in the lower court losing jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court was empowered under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer the suit to itself for hearing and determination. The court distinguished the present case from Kangenyi v Musiromo & Another, noting that in this instance, jurisdiction was lost due to intervening events rather than being absent from the outset.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 transferred to the High Court for hearing and determination.
Orders
- Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 is hereby transferred to the High Court for hearing and determination.
- Costs shall await the outcome of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Misc Appli 491 of 2005
JANE WANJIRA KAMAU…………….............................................……………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
MUSA K. KIPKIOS……………...........................................………………….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Jane Wanjira Kamau, the applicant in the Notice of Motion dated 15th July, 2005, sought for an order of Transfer of Nakuru C.M.C.C. No.429/90 to the High Court for hearing and determination.
The Applicant is the defendant in Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 where she was sued by the Respondent. The dispute involved allotment of a PlotNo.1113.
It was the applicant’s contention that when the case was pending for hearing and with an interim order to maintain the status quo by both the Plaintiff and Defendant, the Respondent unlawfully obtained the title to the suit property thereby necessitating the amendment of the defence and the filing of the counter-claim by the applicant in order to protect her interest
In view of the amendment of the pleading, the lower court would not have the Jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought and thus it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the high court.
The Respondent opposed the application by filing grounds of opposition. Since there is no replying affidavit of the Respondent to counter the allegations of facts contained in the applicant’s affidavit. The applicant’s Statement of fact must be accepted by this court.
However, on a point of law, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that although Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act gives a general power of transfer of all suits, which may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings even suo moto by the court without even an application by any party. An order for transfer of a suit from one court to another cannot be made unless the suit has been in the first instance been brought to a court which has jurisdiction to deal with a suit.
Counsel for the Respondent put forward the case of Kangenyi –Vs- Musiromo & Another E.A.L.R.[1968]EA 43. The High Court of Uganda with a similar issue in an application brought by an applicant seeking to transfer a suit to the High Court for determination on the ground that the court of the Magistrate Grade II, Bukoto before whom the case was pending, had no jurisdiction to try the case. The total value of the subject matter of the case was stated to be well over Shs.10,000/- whilst the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in civil matters was limited to Kshs.1,000/-.
It was held:-
“The subject matter of the application onthe admission and showing of the applicanthad been instituted in a court without jurisdiction and it was therefore incompetent forthe case to be transferred to the High Courtfor hearing and determination.”
The case before me is slightly different from one determined in the above authority. The suit in question was filed by the respondent in the subordinate court. An order was issued to maintain the status quo and during the pendancy of the case, the respondent caused a transfer of the land and Title to be issued in his name and thereby the applicant had to amend the pleadings. The whole substractum of the suit changed while the suit was pending determination and due to the acts of the respondent and the lower court now lost jurisdiction.
It is therefore clear that the court had in the first instance when
the suit was brought the jurisdiction to deal with it but due to the intervening action by the respondent the lower court has no jurisdiction.
I am of the view that under the provisions of Section 18 this court has power to:-
a)“transfer any suit, appeal or otherproceeding pending before it for trialor disposal to any court subordinateto it and competent to try or dispose ofthe same; or (b)…
b)(i) try or dispose of the same or
(ii) transfer the same for trial ordisposal to any court subordinateto it and competent to try ordispose of the same…”
For the above reasons, the applicant should be allowed,
the prayers sought. The Nakuru CMCC No.429/90 be and is hereby transferred to the High Court for hearing and determination.
Costs shall await the outcome of the suit.
It is so ordered.
Ruling Read and Signed on 28th April, 2006.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE