[2006] KEHC 1110 (KLR)
The court held that the High Court, whether at Milimani Commercial Court or Central Registry, is one and the same, with unlimited jurisdiction. Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court wide powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The plaintiff's physical disability and desire to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Boru Soso Halake; Defendant: Wilson Kipkemboi Kipkoti; Defendant: Prudential Bank Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Deposit Protection Fund Board
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 769 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application for transfer of suit granted.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Court Jurisdiction, Access to Justice
- 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
John Boru Soso Halake
Plaintiff
Wilson Kipkemboi Kipkoti
Defendant
Prudential Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
Defendant
Deposit Protection Fund Board
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a suit from Milimani Commercial Court to the Central Registry for reasons of accessibility.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's physical disability and desire to attend court in person justify the transfer of the suit.
- 3 Whether the application for transfer is intended to delay the hearing of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the High Court, whether at Milimani Commercial Court or Central Registry, is one and the same, with unlimited jurisdiction. Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court wide powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The plaintiff's physical disability and desire to be present at the hearing constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of the suit to a more accessible venue. The defendants' arguments regarding potential delay and backlog at the Central Registry were found insufficient to outweigh the plaintiff's right to access justice and participate in his case. The court found no reason to deny the plaintiff's application and ordered the...
Court Disposition
Application for transfer of suit granted.
Orders
- This suit is hereby transferred to the High Court Central Registry Nairobi for disposal.
- The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 24th July, 2006 shall be the defendants in any event.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
Civil Suit 769 of 2003
JOHN BORU SOSO HALAKE ………………….………..................................……………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WILSON KIPKEMBOI KIPKOTI ………………………......................................……..1ST DEFENDANT
PRUDENTIAL BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)……...........................................2ND DEFENDANT
DEPOSIT PROTECTION FUND BOARD………......................................…………. 3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff seeks for an order that this file be transferred to the High Court Central Registry, Nairobi. The ground upon which the plaintiff seeks that prayer is that he is wheel-chair-ridden and he is not able to access the High Court at Milimani Commercial Court. The plaintiff states that it is in the interest of justice that this case be transferred to the Central Registry High Court Nairobi to enable him access the court when his matter is being heard.
The plaintiff exhibited a medical report prepared by Prof. L.N. Gakuu dated the 21st January, 2003. The report states that the plaintiff was involved in a road traffic accident in 1991 where he suffered serious injuries. He later on in 1997 suffered a stroke which made him paraplegic and wheel chair bound. The plaintiff has moved the court under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
The application was opposed by the defendant. The first ground of opposition was that the orders sought by the plaintiff are not available under the law. This the court would respond that there is wide power donated by Section 3A where the court can make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. In any case the High court is one, section 60 of the Constitution of Kenya provides:
“There shall be a High Court, which shall be a superior court of record, and which shall have unlimited jurisdiction”
That being the case, the High Court is one whether it is situate at Central Registry Nairobi or at Milimani Commercial courts.
The defendant further opposed the plaintiff’s application on the basis that the plaintiff at the time of filing this case in Milimani Commercial Court, he was aware of his condition. The plaintiff in his supporting affidavit intimidated that he was previously represented by Mr. R.O. Gaya Advocate and it does seem that there were misunderstandings between the said advocate and the plaintiff. Indeed the plaintiff stated the differences were such that he was forced to change his advocate to the one now representing him. The defendant did further state in its grounds of opposition that the plaintiff’s application is intended to delay the hearing of this suit. The defendant did not elaborate in those grounds what delay is envisaged but in argument, did state that it is well known that the central registry has a backlog of cases. That to my mind is not sufficient reason to deny the plaintiff the prayers that he seeks. The defendant further objected to the application on the ground that the plaintiff would be all the time represented by counsel at the hearing of his matters even if the matter did proceed at the High Court Milimani Commercial court. That is indeed correct but the plaintiff having shown the desire to be present at the hearing of his matter the interest of justice demands that he be accorded that opportunity.
There is no reason shown to me why I should deny the plaintiff the orders he seeks.
The court grants the plaintiff the following orders:
1. That this suit be and is hereby transferred to the High court central Registry Nairobi for disposal
2. The costs of the Notice Motion dated 24th July, 2006 shall be the defendants in any event.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered on this 19th day of October 2006
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE