[2004] KEHC 1398 (KLR)
The High Court held that it cannot assume jurisdiction over a suit transferred from a subordinate court that lacked jurisdiction in the first instance. The competence of a suit is determined by the jurisdiction of the court where it was originally filed. Since the Chief Magistrate's Court did not have jurisdiction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Leonard Njeru; Defendant: Christophehr Muraya Kanyi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 256 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- suit struck out as incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Jurisdiction of High Court, Competence of Suit
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Leonard Njeru
Plaintiff
Christophehr Muraya Kanyi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a suit transferred from a subordinate court that lacked jurisdiction in the first instance.
- 2 Whether the suit is competent before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it cannot assume jurisdiction over a suit transferred from a subordinate court that lacked jurisdiction in the first instance. The competence of a suit is determined by the jurisdiction of the court where it was originally filed. Since the Chief Magistrate's Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, the transfer to the High Court was invalid, rendering the suit incompetent. The court relied on the principle established in Kagenyi v Musiramo, which states that a transfer is only possible if the original court is competent to hear the matter. Consequently, the suit was struck out as incompetent.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The suit is struck out as incompetent.
- No orders as to costs; none awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
1) Civil Practice and Procedure 2) Jurisdiction of High Court 3) Suit originally filed at the Milimani Commercial Courts Chief Magistrate’s Court on 13. 1.00 4) Suit transferred to Nairobi High Court 3. 10. 00 on grounds that plaintiff would get more award 5) Held: Suit incompetent and is struck out 6) Case law Kagenyi v Musiramo 1968 EA 43 7) Advocates: 8) N. Kibatia & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff No appearance for the defendant
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 256 OF 2001
LEONARD NJERU …………………………………………….…………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHRISTOPEHR MURAYA KANYI ………………………..…………DEFENDANT
RULING
The ruling before me concerns the jurisdiction of the High Court.
In this suit, which involves a pedestrian/ motor vehicle accident, whereby the deceased was run down by a motor vehicle on 31. 7.99 at 6. 00 a.m. and sustained fatal injuries, the legal representative filed a suit on 13. 1.00 before the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani.
Thinking that the award to be given by the chief magistrate would be very little the plaintiff had the suit transferred to the High court of Kenya at Nairobi for determination on 13. 10. 00.
The plaintiff changed advocates. The current advocate submitted to this court and stated that “Initially the court had jurisdiction when the party felt that there would be more award and thus transferred the suit to the High Court.” This decision was not that of the new advocate but of the previous old, former advocate. It seems that the chief magistrates court was not able, at the time, to have jurisdiction to hear this matter; thus the transfer. I hereby find that where the subordinate courts lack jurisdiction in the first instance to hear a matter then the High Court cannot transfer the suit to be heard by it as there was no jurisdiction to hear the matter in the first place I believe this matter was well expanded in the case of Kagenyi v Musiramo & Another 1968 EA43.
I hereby struck out this suit. I make no orders as to costs and award none to the defendant as he was absent at the time the case came for trial. As to the effect of my orders the plaintiff will have to start again subject to the Limitation of Action Act Cap.22 laws of Kenya.
Dated this 23rd of September, 2004 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA JUDGE
Kibatia & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
Wairagu & Wairagu Advocates for the defendants