[2009] KEHC 2142 (KLR)
The court held that since the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter at the time the suit was filed, the High Court cannot transfer the suit to itself under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The principle established in KAGENYI vs. MISIRAMO & ANOTHER was applied, which states...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Gihui Mithamo; Respondent: S.S. Metha & Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 196 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Limits
- 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 Gihui Mithamo
Appellant
S.S. Metha & Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can transfer a suit from the Chief Magistrate's Court when the lower court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the High Court to transfer a suit filed in a court without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter at the time the suit was filed, the High Court cannot transfer the suit to itself under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The principle established in KAGENYI vs. MISIRAMO & ANOTHER was applied, which states that a transfer can only be made if the original court had jurisdiction. The applicant's own admission that the lower court lacked jurisdiction further supported the conclusion that the application was incompetent. Consequently, the application to transfer the suit was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to transfer Nairobi CMCC No. 15161 of 2007 to the High Court is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Miscellaneous Civil Case 196 of 2009
JOHN GIHUI MITHAMO .................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
S.S. METHA & CO. LTD ................................. RESPONDENT
RULING
The Plaintiff has moved the court by way of Notice of Motion dated 3rd March, 2009. The Notice of Motion is brought under Section 18(1) (b) (1) and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. In the application the Plaintiff seeks for orders:-
1. That Nairobi CMCC No. 15161 of 2007 John Githu Mithamo vs. S.S. Metha & Company Limited be transferred from the Chief Magistrate’s Court to the High Court.
2. That the costs be in the cause.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Jeremy Njenga Advocates. In the affidavit it is stated that at the time of filing suit it was believed that the Magistrate had the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. That since then the medical condition of the Plaintiff has deteriorated necessitating several operations thus escalating the medical bills.
On its part the defendant has raised a Preliminary Objection. The Notice of Objection and grounds of Operations we filed on the 19th March, 2009. The gist of the Preliminary Objection is that.
1. The application offends the Provisions of Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. That the lower court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore the suit is not transferable to the High Court.
The Defendant’s counsel cited several authorities in support of her position.
The issue before the court for determination is whether the court can invoke section 18 and transfer the case from the Subordinate Court to the High Court.
The Plaintiff’s application is clear, the Chief Magistrates Court has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to handle the matter hence this application. In OWMOYO vs. AFRICAN HIGHLANDS PRODUCE LTD (2002) 1 KLR 698 AT 699 Ringera J (as he then was) invoked the ruling in KAGENYI vs. MISIRAMO & ANOTHER (1908) G.A 118, Sir Udoma Udoma CJ held:-
“That an order for the transfer of a suit from one court to another cannot be made unless the suit has been in the first place brought to a court which has jurisdiction to try it. In that case the appellant had sought to transfer a suit from the Magistrate’s Court to the High Court on the basis that the claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court.”
Guided by the above mentioned authority, I find that the Chief Magistrates court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction in the first place to hear this case. Indeed this has been admitted by the Plaintiffs counsel. It therefore follows this court cannot transfer to itself a case from a court that lacked jurisdiction. The application is therefore dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered this 27th May, 2009.
ABIDA ALI ARONI
JUDGE