[2012] KEHC 1113 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute was not about the land itself but rather about the payment of Kshs. 250,000 under a contract. Both parties' addresses at the time of the agreement were in Nairobi, and the agreement was drawn by advocates based in Nairobi. The court held that the requirements for transfer under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1113 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Japheth Onyango Omolo; Respondent: Sally Anyango Ogola
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 240 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction, Venue of Suit, Contract Performance
- 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
Japheth Onyango Omolo
Applicant
Sally Anyango Ogola
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Court) to the Principal Magistrate Court at Nyando for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the subject matter of the suit is land situated at Ahero or a contractual claim for payment of Kshs. 250,000.
- 3 Whether the requirements of section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act regarding jurisdiction and venue are met.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute was not about the land itself but rather about the payment of Kshs. 250,000 under a contract. Both parties' addresses at the time of the agreement were in Nairobi, and the agreement was drawn by advocates based in Nairobi. The court held that the requirements for transfer under section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act were not met, as the cause of action and the parties were connected to Nairobi, not Ahero. Therefore, the application to transfer the suit to Nyando was without merit and was disallowed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for transfer of suit is disallowed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application 240 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
JAPHETH ONYANGO OMOLO...................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
SALLY ANYANGO OGOLA ….................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicants Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2012 prays that suit No. 4573 of 2009 at Chief Magistrate's Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Court) be transferred to Principal Magistrate Court at Nyando for hearing and final determination. The same is supported by the applicant's affidavit sworn on 12th August 2012.
The gist of the application is that the subject matter in issue, that is land, is situate at Ahero within the geographical distance and jurisdiction of the Nyando Court.
The applicant has further argued that most of the witnesses to be called do reside at Ahero and not Nairobi.
The respondent has opposed the application vide the replying affidavit sworn on 5th November 2010. The respondent's contention is that the issue at hand is a performance of a contract and in particular payment of the sum Kshs. 250,000 which has nothing to do with the land.
Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act which deals with the filing of suits states:-
“15 Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
a)The defendant or each of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or
b)Any of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided either the leave of the court is given or the defendants who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain as aforesaid acquiesce in such, or
c)The cause of action, wholly or part, arises”
I have perused the plaint as well as the sale agreement attached to the respondent's replying affidavit. Both the applicant as well as the respondent addresses read Nairobi at the time of the singing the agreement.
Further the same was drawn by M/s Eboso & Wandago Advocateswhose addresses are indicated to be Nairobi.
On perusing the plaint the issues at stake is the sum of Kshs. 250,000 and not the land parcels number East Kano / Amira Scheme / 1110 and 1111.
In the premises I do not find the application meritorious. The Chief Magistrate's Court at Milimani Nairobi can easily determine the same. I disallow it with costs to the respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 14th day of November 2012.
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE
In the presence of:
N/A for Applicant
P. J. Otieno for Respondent
HKC/aao