[2014] KEHC 4193 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not been enjoined as a party to the suit in the Mumias Court and that his apprehension of bias was based solely on hearsay, lacking any factual support. The court emphasized that even if the former clerk was friendly with the 2nd respondent, the decision would be made by a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4193 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseck Okumu Barasa; Respondent: Samuel Gachigi Karanga; Respondent: Robert Bob Barasa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Joinder of Parties, Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Joseck Okumu Barasa
Applicant
Samuel Gachigi Karanga
Respondent
Robert Bob Barasa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for transfer of Mumias Court file no. SPMCC.107 of 2013 to Kakamega Chief Magistrate’s Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant's apprehension of bias is supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not been enjoined as a party to the suit in the Mumias Court and that his apprehension of bias was based solely on hearsay, lacking any factual support. The court emphasized that even if the former clerk was friendly with the 2nd respondent, the decision would be made by a magistrate, not a clerk. The application was deemed misconceived and an abuse of the court process, as it implied without basis that judicial officers are easily influenced by clerks. The court held that such misconceptions should not be encouraged and dismissed the application for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 25.6.2013 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISC. APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2013
JOSECK OKUMU BARASA …..….….………….……………… APPLICANT
V E R S U S
SAMUEL GACHIGI KARANGA .…...…..……...………….. 1ST RESPONDENT
ROBERT BOB BARASA …. ……….....…………………….. 2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application dated 25. 6.2013 seeks to have Mumias Court file no. SPMCC.107 of 2013 transferred to Kakamega Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and final determination. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit. The 1st respondent swore a replying affidavit on the 30. 7.2013. Parties relied on their respective pleadings.
The applicant contends that he made an application to be enjoined in the suit before the Mumias Court. He is apprehensive that the Mumias Court may not be fair because the 2nd respondent who is his brother has been bragging that he will use a former clerk to the court by the name JAMES MOSE to ensure that he wins. The clerk is now based at the Butere Court. The respondent maintains that Moses is not a party to the case and the subject matter is based within the jurisdiction of Mumias.
I have gone through the pleadings and note that the applicant is yet to be enjoined a party to the suit. His apprehension is not supported by any facts as it is pure hearsay. Even if the clerk is a friend to the 2nd respondent the case will not be decided by the clerk but by a magistrate. The application is misconceived and an abuse of the court process. The implication is that judicial officers are easily influenced by their clerks in determining cases. This is a misconception which should not be encouraged. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
Delivered, dated at Kakamega this 26th day of June 2014
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E