[2013] KEHC 4474 (KLR)
The court held that while the security concerns raised by the defendant's counsel are serious and should be reported to the police, it would be premature to determine the transfer of the suit from Nakuru to Nairobi at this interlocutory stage without hearing the plaintiff/respondent. The matter falls within the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4474 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Naivasha Quarry Project Limited; Defendant: Kenya Wildlife Service
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 23 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application certified urgent; to be served for inter partes hearing; no substantive orders on transfer or stay granted at this stage.
- Judges
- L Waithaka
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court, Security of Counsel, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Naivasha Quarry Project Limited
Plaintiff
Kenya Wildlife Service
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from Nakuru to Nairobi Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the security concerns raised by the defendant's counsel warrant transfer of the suit at this stage.
- 3 Whether ex parte orders for stay of proceedings are justified before hearing the plaintiff/respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the security concerns raised by the defendant's counsel are serious and should be reported to the police, it would be premature to determine the transfer of the suit from Nakuru to Nairobi at this interlocutory stage without hearing the plaintiff/respondent. The matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Nakuru Environment and Land Court, and the application must be served on the plaintiff/respondent for inter partes hearing before any substantive orders can be made. The court certified the application as urgent and directed service for inter partes hearing, with costs in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application certified urgent; to be served for inter partes hearing; no substantive orders on transfer or stay granted at this stage.
Orders
- The application is certified urgent.
- The application to be served upon the plaintiff/respondent for inter partes hearing on 21st May 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nakuru
Environmental & Land Case 23 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif]
NAIVASHA QUARRY PROJECT LIMITED........….PLAINATIFF
VERSUS
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application by Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2012. The applicant seeks exparte orders that there be a stay of further proceedings pending hearing and determination of the application: That this suit be transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final determination.
The application is premised on the grounds that the plaintiff’s members in the year 2001, threatened the Defendant’s counsel and employees with violence and or physical injury. Again on 28th June 2012, the plaintiffs members acted very aggressively against the Defendants officers: That in the interests of safety of the defendants counsel, and its officers and witnesses that this suit be transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final disposal.
In theaffidavit sworn by Patrick Lutta, counsel for the Defendant, he depones that he represents the Defendant in several matters, some in Naivasha. In 2001, after attending the hearing of SRMCC 290 of 2000 and upon trying to effect service to the plaintiffs in their offices within Naivasha town, in the company of police escort and Mr Muriuki a security officer of the Defendant, the plaintiffs members threatened to lynch and set their vehicle ablaze but were restrained by the police officers who had accompanied them. They warned the deponent not to interfere with issues relating to the suit property. That in or about 28th June 2012, the plaintiff members again became very aggressive towards the Defendants officers until the police had to be called in. That the deponent fears for his safety by travelling from Nairobi to Nakuru and back to attend to this matter.
I have read the pleadings carefully and also consulted widely. This is a matter that is within the terminal jurisdiction of the Nakuru Environment and Land Court. The issues raised by the counsel for the defendant on his security and that of the Defendants are very serious officers and should be reported and dealt with by the police immediately.
It would be premature at this stage to determine whether the suit should be heard and determined in Nakuru or Nairobi. The plaintiff/Respondent needs to be brought on board first.
I order as follows:-
1. The application is certified urgent
2. The application to be served upon the plaintiff/Respondent for interpartes hearing on 21st May 2013
3. Costs to be in the cause
Dated signed and delivered this 15th day of March 2013.
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE
Present
Mr Maruti for the applicants
Stephen Mwangi Court Clerk
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]