[2009] KEHC 1167 (KLR)
The application for transfer was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide concrete evidence that the Naivasha Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as no official confirmation was provided. Furthermore, the applicant did not plead special damages in the original plaint before the lower court, and the claim...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1167 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mununga Kianda Farmers Co. Ltd; Respondent: Sogea Satom Kenya Branch
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 102 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Special Damages Pleading
- 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
Mununga Kianda Farmers Co. Ltd
Applicant
Sogea Satom Kenya Branch
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer the suit from the Naivasha Court due to alleged lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for the transfer under section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 3 Whether special damages were properly pleaded and proved in the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for transfer was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide concrete evidence that the Naivasha Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as no official confirmation was provided. Furthermore, the applicant did not plead special damages in the original plaint before the lower court, and the claim for Kshs 8,500,000 was found to be speculative. The court held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, and the mere annexation of assessment reports after the suit was set down for hearing did not satisfy this requirement. The court was not persuaded that sufficient cause had been shown to warrant the transfer of the suit under section 18(1) of the Civil...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for transfer is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 102 OF 2009
MUNUNGA KIANDA FARMERS CO. LTD….…….……..…APPLICANT
VERSUS
SOGEA SATOM KENYA BRANCH………....……….……RESPONDENT
RULING
This court has power under section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, to transfer any suit pending before a subordinate court to another or to withdraw such suit and either transfer the same to another subordinate court or to itself for hearing and final disposal. An applicant seeking the invocation of such power must however satisfy the High Court that there is sufficient cause for the court to exercise its power.
The applicants in this case claim that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Naivasha Court has changed with the elevation of the Chief Magistrate previously attached to that court to the position of a judge of the High Court. This fact was not stated in the application but only mentioned by the advocate when arguing the application. The applicants state that it came to them by surprise on 31st March 2009 that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was Shs 1,000,000/- only.
The present application is premised on the grounds that damages sought to be recovered as special damages have escalated to Kshs 8,500,000/=. The original plaint has not been annexed to the application for the court to establish what the appellants’ claim was as filed. Assuming that the draft amended plaint, annexed to the present application, reflects what was previously claimed.
I note that no special damages were claimed before the lower court. The purported assessment of damage by surveyors and a report of a land valuer, annexed to the supporting affidavit, do not help the applicants’ case since special damages must be pleaded and then proved. That the same were obtained after the suit had already been set down for hearing without any special damages being pleaded, goes to show either; that the suit was filed prematurely, or the applicant’s claim is still unascertainable. I find the figure of Shs. 8. 5 million merely speculative since the plaint does not set out particulars of special damages as ought to be done.
There is no concrete evidence that currently the Naivasha Court has no monetary jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the absence of a letter from the Registrar of the High Court to confirm the current status.
For the above reasons I am not persuaded of the merits of the application before me and I hereby dismiss the application with costs.
I need not make any finding as regards the provision of security and amendment of the plaint in the circumstances.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 9th day of July 2009
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE