[2004] KEHC 1651 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to specify the subordinate courts involved in the transfer request and did not demonstrate that the intended transferee court would have the requisite pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. The application was vague and lacked the necessary particulars to enable the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1651 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josphat Njeru Njoka; Respondent: Eaagad Estate Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 61 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of Courts, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Territorial 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
Josphat Njeru Njoka
Applicant
Eaagad Estate Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for transfer of PM.CC No. 172 of 2002 to the High Court or another subordinate court.
- 2 Whether the subordinate court currently seized of the matter lacks pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether the application is sufficiently specific regarding the courts involved in the transfer request.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to specify the subordinate courts involved in the transfer request and did not demonstrate that the intended transferee court would have the requisite pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. The application was vague and lacked the necessary particulars to enable the court to grant the orders sought. The applicant's own submissions conceded the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent, undermining the basis for the transfer. Consequently, the court held that the application was without merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 8th September 2003 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
MISC. APPL. NO. 61 OF 2003
JOSPHAT NJERU NJOKA……………………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
EAAGAD ESTATE LTD…………………………………...RESPONDENT
RULING
In the Notice up Motion dated 8th September 2003, the Applicant seeks Orders: “That the Honourable court be pleased to withdraw the PM.CC No.172 of 2002 from the subordinate court and transfer the High Court and transfer the same to the High Court or to any other Subordinate Court competent to try and dispose of the suit”. Grounds in support of that application are that:
1. “The Defendant in the defence dated 4th March 2003 has objected the suit on ground of geographical jurisdiction.
2. The anticipated damages payable to the applicant in the event of Success by for exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the subordinate Court.
3. The applicant stand to suffer irreparable loss, expense and Damage should the entire suit be struck out with costs as Intimated by the Defendant for want of jurisdiction.”
If the subordinate court in which the suit intended to be transferred From has no pecuriary and territorial jurisdiction, the Applicant has not made it clear how the subordinate court to which he intends the case be transferred has that jurisdiction. Not only does the Notice of Motion avoid naming the subordinate courts the Applicant is talking about. It also avoid naming the High Court to which the transfer may be made. The supporting affidavit does not make the matter better. Even during submissions, it was not until counsel for the Respondent started mentioning names of courts that the Applicant’s Council was forced to mention a court’s name in her rejoinder.
Otherwise I would have granted the Applicant’s Notice of Motion had it been specific and clear and more importantly, I had it avoided supporting the Respondent’s opposition to the Motion. I do not see why a Resident Magistrate’s court at Thika can be said to have no territorial or geographical Jurisdiction in a case arising, for example, from Embu and a Resident Magistrate’s court at Embu be said to have no such jurisdication in a case Whose cause of action took place at Thika.
But because the Applicant is conceding that ground and is using it to have case PM.CC No. 172 of 2002 transferred from wherever it is and goes on to add that that court also lacks pecuriary jurisdiction, I do not see how I can grant his application in fact I do not understand why this Notice of Motion had to be there in the first place.
Accordingly, the said Notice of Motion be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated this 6th day of May, 2004
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE
Present: Mr. Okwaro for M/s Thoronga