[2009] KEHC 1683 (KLR)
The court found that since the goods in question are now in India and outside the jurisdiction of the Kenyan courts, no injunctive or other orders can be made regarding them. The court also noted that there was no existing injunction in place concerning the goods. Consequently, the preliminary objection seeking to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1683 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: KRK IMPEX PVT LIMITED; Defendant: SAFMARINE KENYA LIMITED; Defendant: ACCORD METALS (KENYA) LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 693 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Chamber Summons
- Outcome
- preliminary objection rejected; costs awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Striking Out Suit, Foreign Parties, Goods in Transit
- 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
KRK IMPEX PVT LIMITED
Plaintiff
SAFMARINE KENYA LIMITED
Defendant
ACCORD METALS (KENYA) LIMITED
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Chamber Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kenyan court has jurisdiction over goods now located in India.
- 2 Whether the suit should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether any injunctive orders can be made regarding goods outside Kenya.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the goods in question are now in India and outside the jurisdiction of the Kenyan courts, no injunctive or other orders can be made regarding them. The court also noted that there was no existing injunction in place concerning the goods. Consequently, the preliminary objection seeking to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction was rejected, and the costs of the application were awarded to the respondent because the application was deemed unnecessary.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection rejected; costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- The preliminary objection is rejected.
- The costs of this application shall be paid to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 693 of 2008
KRK IMPEX PVT LIMITED................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAFMARINE KENYA LIMITED .............. 1ST DEFENDANT
ACCORD METALS (KENYA) LIMITED..2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
On 25/9/2009, the first defendant filed Chamber Summons seeking order that the suit herein be struck out for want of jurisdiction on the grounds set out therein. On the same date the first defendant filed a notice of Preliminary Objection on the grounds set out therein.
The main grounds are that the subject matter of suit (some goods) are now in India and there are litigations going on in India and that the plaintiff, a limited liability company is registered in India and therefore there is no jurisdiction in a Kenyan court to undertake suit in Kenya.
The application was filed late for hearing on 28/9/09. The respondent had no time to prepare opposition documents but he chose to oppose the application all the same. This court made a ruling on 6/3/2009 in connection with certain goods mentioned in Application dated 24/11/08. The court was informed that the goods had already been transported from Kenya and were in a foreign port. The court did notice the situation and made no order except for the payment of the demurrage charges and the claim of undertaking made by the plaintiff.
This court is now requested to make order that the goods which are now said to be in India, out of the jurisdiction of Kenya be released. Counsel for respondent agrees that the goods are now out of the country and nor orders can be made by Kenya courts. There is therefore no order for injunction is in existence regarding the said goods in this court.
The Preliminary Objection is rejected. The costs of this application shall be paid to respondent for the reason that this application was not necessary.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 2nd day of October 2009.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE