[2013] KEHC 2214 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and valid grounds for the transfer of the suit from Mombasa to Kwale. The Mombasa Court has jurisdiction as the defendants reside and work there, and the suit was properly filed within its jurisdiction. There was no evidence that the matter would not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2214 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Wangeci Mabia (Suing on her own behalf and as administratrix of the Estate of Allen Lugondi Mureyi); Respondent: Silvester Kimanthi; Respondent: Brookside Dairies Limited; Respondent: Maweu Annah; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Suit 397 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Venue of Suit
- 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
Mary Wangeci Mabia (Suing on her own behalf and as administratrix of the Estate of Allen Lugondi Mureyi)
Applicant
Silvester Kimanthi
Respondent
Brookside Dairies Limited
Respondent
Maweu Annah
Respondent
Kenya Commercial Bank
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from the Chief Magistrates Court Mombasa to the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kwale.
- 2 Whether the Mombasa Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated valid grounds for transfer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and valid grounds for the transfer of the suit from Mombasa to Kwale. The Mombasa Court has jurisdiction as the defendants reside and work there, and the suit was properly filed within its jurisdiction. There was no evidence that the matter would not be expeditiously heard and determined in Mombasa, and transferring the suit would be prejudicial to the defendants due to potential delays. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for transfer of suit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION SUIT NO. 397 OF 2012
MARY WANGECI MABIA ( Suing on her own behalf
And as administratrix of the Estate of )
ALLEN LUGONDI MUREYI ….......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SILVESTER KIMANTHI
BROOKSIDE DAIRIES LIMITED
MAWEU ANNAH
KENYA CCOMMERCIAL BANK ….........................DEFENDANTS
RULING
By way of a Notice of Motion application dated the 7th day of December, 2012 the applicant sought orders for the transfer of Civil Suit No. 2754 of 2011 MARY WANGECHI MABIA – VS- SILVESTER KIMANTHI & OTHERS from Chief Magistrates Court Mombasa to Kwale Court.
The grounds are that the cause of action arose at TIWI along Ukunda – Likoni road within the jurisdiction of the Principal Magistrate's Court at Kwale.
That at the time of filing the suit the Kwale Court was a Senior Resident Magistrate one. That it is now a Principal Magistrate Court with enhanced monetary jurisdiction. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mary Wangechi Mabia.
The application is opposed. The Court has been cited the case of CHRISTINE KAHINDI KARUA & ANO. -VS- MAHA INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANO.where Omondi, Judge rendered herself thus,
“The matter is adequately catered for by the provisions of section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act and there is no reason to warrant Transferring the matter to Garsen”.
Section 15 of the Act provides,
“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the Defendant or each of the Defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain or
(b) any of the Defendants (whose and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain....
(c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises”.
It is not in dispute that the Defendants work and reside in Mombasa where the suit was filed.
I am of the considered view that the applicant has not demonstrated good and valid grounds for the transfer of the suit to Kwale. The Mombasa Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. It has already been filed and probably waiting the fixing of hearing dates. There is no indication that the matter will not be expeditiously heard and determined in Mombasa.
Indeed, the transfer would be prejudicial to the Defendants owing to delay.
The application has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
Ruling delivered dated and signed in open Court this 25th day of September, 2013.
…................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
25TH SEPTEMBER, 2013
In the presence of:-
Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Shimaka
Learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant Ms Kahiti
Court clerk Musundi