[2017] KEHC 244 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or substantiated reasons to justify the transfer of the suit from Maua Law Court to Meru Law Court. The applicant's apprehension was based solely on hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the first respondent's alleged influence over...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mwenda alias John Muriki; Respondent: Joseph Mwenda; Respondent: The District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Meru North District
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 14 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Land Adjudication, Apprehension of Bias
- 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 Mwenda alias John Muriki
Applicant
Joseph Mwenda
Respondent
The District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Meru North District
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the transfer of Maua CMCC No. 225 of 2010 to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Meru.
- 2 Whether mere apprehension of bias, without substantiated evidence, is adequate to justify transfer of a suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or substantiated reasons to justify the transfer of the suit from Maua Law Court to Meru Law Court. The applicant's apprehension was based solely on hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the first respondent's alleged influence over the court. The court emphasized that mere apprehension, without concrete proof of bias or injustice, does not meet the threshold required for transfer of a suit. The court also noted the potential for abuse if transfers were granted on such flimsy grounds, as it could lead to endless forum shopping. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 20/03/2014 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 14 OF 2014
JOHN MWENDA alias JOHN MURIKI.................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
1. JOSEPH MWENDA
2. THE DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION AND
SETTLEMENT OFFICER MERU NORTH DISTRICT...RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application under consideration in this ruling is the Notice of Motion dated 20/03/2014 and filed on 26/03/2014 which seeks to transfer Maua CMCC No. 225 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit’) to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Meru for hearing and determination.
2. The application is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 14/03/2014. The application is opposed by the first Respondent through his Replying Affidavit sworn on 22/07/2014 and filed on 28/07/2014.
3. The main ground for the application is that the Applicant is apprehensive that he will not get justice if the suit is tried at Maua Law Court for reason that the first Respondent, who is his brother, informed him that he will ensure that the suit is determined in the Applicant’s absence. The first Respondent denied the assertions and contended that he has no control over court proceedings and as such the fear is far-fetched and unfounded as it’s based on unsubstantiated allegations.
4. This Court has carefully considered the application and is not satisfied that it is merited. I say so because the same is based on heresay as the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the first Respondent has control over the courts in Maua Law Court. Suppose the suit is transferred to Meru Law Court as sought and thereafter the Applicant ‘is likewise informed’, will he seek to transfer the same again to another court? And for how long? The questions are unending.
5. As I come to the end of this ruling, it is my hope that the Applicant shall take deliberate steps to prosecute the suit which has been in court since 2010.
6. The upshot is that the Notice of Motion dated 20/03/2014 is hereby dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at MERU this 21st day of July 2017.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE