[2009] KEHC 927 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any credible basis for the transfer of the suit. There was no evidence of inadvertence in filing the suit in the subordinate court, as the applicant actively prosecuted the matter there for several months, including issuing hearing notices and responding to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 927 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dr. Kennedy Gogo; Respondent: Royal Media Services
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 179 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Court Jurisdiction, Procedural Errors
- 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
Dr. Kennedy Gogo
Applicant
Royal Media Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the transfer of Civil Suit No. 938 of 2008 from the Chief Magistrate's Court to the High Court.
- 2 Whether the suit was erroneously filed in the subordinate court due to inadvertence.
- 3 Whether the damages sought exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any credible basis for the transfer of the suit. There was no evidence of inadvertence in filing the suit in the subordinate court, as the applicant actively prosecuted the matter there for several months, including issuing hearing notices and responding to pleadings. The only error identified was the reference to the High Court in the heading of the plaint, which did not amount to a substantive ground for transfer. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any evidence or lay a foundation for the claim that the damages sought exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate court. In the absence of cause shown as required by...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for transfer of Civil Suit No. 938 of 2008 from the Chief Magistrate's Court 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 NAKURU
Misc Appli 179 of 2009
DR. KENNEDY GOGO………………………….………..……………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES………………..………………………DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant in the notice of motion dated 12th June 2009 seeks orders for the transfer of Civil Suit No. 938 of 2008 from the Chief Magistrate’s Court to the High Court. The applicant claims that the said suit was erroneously filed in the lower court on 17th September 2008, and that it was not until the same was set down for hearing that the error or inadvertence was discovered. This is the only ground advanced in the body of the application although, in the supporting affidavit, the applicant states that the intention was to file the suit in the High Court (as will be seen from the title of the plaint)and that the damages sought exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate court.
The application is opposed on the strength of the defendant’s grounds of opposition dated 14th September 2009 in which the respondent, inter alia, casts doubt on the alleged inadvertence, given that it took the applicant 9 months to apply for a transfer and that the applicant had proceeded to set the suit down for hearing in the lower court.
Submitting in support of the application learned counsel Mr. Kibelion told this court that the error in filing the suit in the subordinate court was made by his law clerk. He also said that the damages sought exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court, without, however, laying any basis for that submission. The issue of damages is not even made a ground in the application itself. Learned counsel for the respondent, Ms Mwangi asked the court to dismiss the application as an afterthought.
I have considered the application in the light of the submissions made before me, the facts as disclosed, as well as the law governing the transfer of suits. I also took it upon myself to call for the lower court’s file for perusal before arriving at my decision herein. After filing the suit in the lower court, the applicant obtained summons to enter appearance in that court and served the defendants herein. The defence filed and served upon the plaintiffs clearly referred to the proceedings as being:
“IN (sic) CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAKURU, CIVIL SUIT NO. 938 OF 2008. ”
A reply to the defendant’s statement of defence was filed in the same court, albeit titled:
“IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU…..”
The invitation to fix a hearing date issued by the plaintiff/applicant on 27th October 2008 (by registered post) clearly referred to “CMCC NO. 938/2008”. The same reference appears in a subsequent invitation dated 3rd December, 2008, and the hearing notice dated 19th December 2008, served on the defendants on 13th January 2009.
Given the above, I am inclined to accept the respondent’s contention that the application herein is an afterthought and that there was no intention to file this suit in the High Court as is now claimed. There can be no inference of any inadvertence in the filing of the same in the subordinate court. The only error that this court can read from the pleadings, perhaps, is the reference to the High Court in the heading of the plaint.
No basis has been laid or evidence produced to support the claim that lower court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is inadequate. Therefore, there being no cause shown, to warrant the transfer of the suit, as is required under Order LXVI rule 5(2)of theCivil Procedure Rules I decline to grant the orders sought and hereby dismiss the application with costs to the respondents.
Dated signed and delivered at Nakuru this 23rd day of October 2009
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE