https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8842

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8842

The court dismissed the transfer application because it was not persuaded that the respondent had been properly served, noting irregular service by email on a firm whose appearance was unexplained and service occurring after the affidavit of service; given the applicant's non-compliance with directions, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8842 (KLR)
Parties
1st Applicant / Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Dymian Kipchumba: John Kipkoech Kibor; 2nd Applicant / Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Dymian Kipchumba: Hellen Jemutai Koech; Respondent: Corner Stores Molo Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E032 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Miscellaneous Application for Transfer of Suit / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed
Judges
["SM Mohochi"]
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suit, Service of Process, Discretionary Relief, Affidavit of Service, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Practice and Procedure Transfer of Suit Service of Process Discretionary Relief Affidavit of Service Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kipkoech Kibor

1st Applicant / Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Dymian Kipchumba

Hellen Jemutai Koech

2nd Applicant / Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Dymian Kipchumba

Corner Stores Molo Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Miscellaneous Application for Transfer of Suit / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the application for transfer of Nakuru MCCC No. E734 of 2025 to Kabarnet was properly served on the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had met the threshold for the court to exercise discretion in granting a transfer order
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the event or be withheld

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the transfer application because it was not persuaded that the respondent had been properly served, noting irregular service by email on a firm whose appearance was unexplained and service occurring after the affidavit of service; given the applicant's non-compliance with directions, the discretionary relief could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion application dated 21st January 2026 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.