[2013] KEHC 6574 (KLR)
The court declined to make a substantive ruling on the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for judgment on admission because it was not clear how the matter was transferred from the Environmental and Land Division to the Commercial and Admiralty Division, and there was no record of any court order or minute authorizing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6574 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lornby Holdings Limited; Defendant: Celina Wambui Kigwe Limited; Defendant: Lucy Wanjiru Kigwe; Defendant: Virginia Wanjiku Kimani; Defendant: Ann Kariri; Defendant: Violet Mbuthia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 525 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission
- Outcome
- Application declined for want of jurisdiction; parties directed to regularize division.
- Judges
- CM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Judgment on Admission, Jurisdiction of Divisions, Transfer of Suit, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
Lornby Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Celina Wambui Kigwe Limited
Defendant
Lucy Wanjiru Kigwe
Defendant
Virginia Wanjiku Kimani
Defendant
Ann Kariri
Defendant
Violet Mbuthia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court is properly seized of jurisdiction to determine the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application for judgment on admission.
- 2 Whether the transfer of the matter between divisions was regular and supported by court directions.
- 3 Whether the court can make substantive orders in the absence of clear jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to make a substantive ruling on the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for judgment on admission because it was not clear how the matter was transferred from the Environmental and Land Division to the Commercial and Admiralty Division, and there was no record of any court order or minute authorizing such transfer. Furthermore, the court found that the matter did not have a commercial element and thus should not be before the Commercial and Admiralty Division. Making substantive orders in the absence of clear jurisdiction would risk conflicting with orders from the division properly seized of the matter. The court therefore directed the parties to urgently resolve the issue of...
Court Disposition
Application declined for want of jurisdiction; parties directed to regularize division.
Orders
- The court declines to make a substantive ruling on the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 25th March 2013.
- Parties are directed to urgently take appropriate steps to resolve the issue of the division that should be properly seized of the matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND DIVISION
FAST TRACK
CIVIL SUIT NO 525 OF 2012
LORNBY HOLDINGS LIMITED………………..………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CELINA WAMBUI KIGWE LIMITED…………….………………………..1ST DEFENDANT
LUCY WANJIRU KIGWE…………………………………………………..2ND DEFENDANT
VIRGINIA WANJIKU KIMANI……………………………………………..3RD DEFENDANT
ANN KARIRI…………………………………………………………………4TH DEFENDANT
VIOLET MBUTHIA…………………………………………………………..5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 25th March 2013 and filed on the 26th March 2013 was brought under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It sought for orders that judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the sum of Kshs 10,000,000/=.
When the matter came up in court for the first time on 29th April 2013, the parties informed the court that the Defendants were really not opposed to the said application but that all they really wanted was for time to pay the said amount. The matter was then adjourned to 10th May 2013 for purposes of recording a consent.
On 10th May 2013, the Plaintiff informed the court that they had received a proposal of the settlement of the matter but nonetheless indicated that both parties could file their respective written submissions. During the court attendance on 24th May 2013, the parties confirmed to the court that they had filed the said submissions and requested that the court gives a ruling date as they did not wish to highlight the said submissions.
They both relied on Order 51 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules Cap 21 ( of the laws of Kenya) which provides as follows:-
“ The Court may, in its discretion, limit the time for oral submissions by the parties or their advocates or allow written submissions.”
The court allowed the counsels’ application and indicated that the said ruling would be delivered on notice.
At the time of writing the ruling, it came to the attention of this court that the matter was initially filed in the “Environmental and Land Division”. All the court documents were filed under the said Division until the 26th March 2013 when the Plaintiff’s application was filed in the “Commercial and Admiralty Division”. The Defendants’ Replying Affidavit bears the heading of “Environmental and Land Division”. The respective written submissions were, however, filed under the heading of the “Commercial and Admiralty Division.”
After careful perusal of the Plaintiff’s claim, it is not clear how the matter moved from the “Environmental and Land Division” as there is no minute or directions by the court in the court file showing the movement of this file from the previous division to the Commercial & Admiralty Division.
It is also abundantly clear that there is no commercial element in this matter and this court cannot therefore make any orders herein as the same could conflict with the orders that could be made by the court which should be properly seized of the same.
In the circumstances, the court hereby declines to make a substantive ruling in respect of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated on 25th March 2013 and filed on 26th March 2013 and hereby directs that the parties to urgently take the appropriate steps to resolve the issue of the division that should be properly seized of this matter with a view to having the said application disposed of.
It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30th day of August 2013
J. KAMAU
JUDGE