[2009] KEHC 3030 (KLR)
The court found that the application for transfer of the suit from Nairobi to Mombasa lacked merit because the High Court at Nairobi is competent to hear and determine applications for interim protection measures under the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act provides for the court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3030 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Airports Parking Services Ltd.; Plaintiff: KAPS Municipal Parking Services Ltd.; Defendant: Municipal Council of Mombasa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 434 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Arbitration Referral, Interim Measures, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Kenya Airports Parking Services Ltd.
Plaintiff
KAPS Municipal Parking Services Ltd.
Plaintiff
Municipal Council of Mombasa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from the High Court at Nairobi to the Mombasa High Court District Registry.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim protection measures under the Arbitration Act pending arbitration.
- 3 Whether the application for transfer has merit in light of the arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for transfer of the suit from Nairobi to Mombasa lacked merit because the High Court at Nairobi is competent to hear and determine applications for interim protection measures under the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act provides for the court's jurisdiction to grant such orders and that the matter would ultimately be referred to arbitration. No prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if the application is heard in Nairobi. Accordingly, the application for transfer was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for transfer of the suit from Nairobi to Mombasa is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 434 OF 2009
KENYA AIRPORTS PARKING SERVICES LTD. ….. 1ST PLAINTIFF
KAPS MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES LTD. ….. 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MOMBASA ……………… DEFENDANT
RULING
Notice of motion brought to court under Section 3A, Civil Procedure Act dated 29/6/09 seeking the transfer of this suit from High Court of Kenya at Nairobi to District Registry at Mombasa High Court on the grounds stated namely; the suit arises out of alleged agreement between the parties, first plaintiff and defendant.
The court has been moved for interim measures of protection under Arbitration Act.It is submitted that the matter falls under the provisions of Arbitration Act 1995. There is no dispute on the issue of referring the dispute to arbitration.
The powers of the High Court under the Arbitration Act is provided under Section 6being to deal with applications for stay of suits and referring the same to arbitration where it is appropriate. Section 10 of the Act prohibits the court from dealing with matters covered by Arbitration Act. However, in addition with Section 6 providing for stay, Section 7 does empower the court to grant interim protection orders pending before or during or after arbitral proceedings such as injunction.
This suit is for the purpose of seeking the order for such protection measures. The application before court is for arguments not for calling evidence. No prejudice will be suffered by the respondent if the matter is dealt with here in Nairobi.
t is clear that when application is heard the matter will be placed in the hands of an arbitrator. I therefore, do not see merit in this application. The same is dismissed with costs.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 8th day of July 2009.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE