[2013] KEHC 6805 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant's counsel had provided credible evidence of threats and intimidation by the plaintiff's members in Naivasha, both in 2001 and in 2012. The court recognized the importance of ensuring that advocates and court officers are able to conduct litigation without fear for their personal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6805 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Naivasha Quarry Project Limited; Defendant: Kenya Wildlife Service
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 23 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application for transfer allowed
- Judges
- L Waithaka
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Venue of Trial, Personal Safety of Counsel
- 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
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from Nakuru to Nairobi for hearing and final determination due to security concerns for the defendant's counsel and officers.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant's counsel had provided credible evidence of threats and intimidation by the plaintiff's members in Naivasha, both in 2001 and in 2012. The court recognized the importance of ensuring that advocates and court officers are able to conduct litigation without fear for their personal safety. Since the plaintiff did not oppose the application, and in the interests of justice and safety, the court exercised its discretion to transfer the suit to Nairobi for hearing and final determination.
Court Disposition
application for transfer allowed
Orders
- This cause is transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final determination.
- The Deputy Registrar is directed to effect the transfer accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NO 23 OF 2012
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 the following orders among others: 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 in a similar manner towards the Defendants officers. To enable the defendants counsel, its officers and witnesses feel secure this suit should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi for hearing and final determination.
In his supporting affidavit sworn on 12th November, 2012 Patrick Lutta ( Counsel for the Defendant,) depones that he represents the Defendant in several matters, some in Naivasha. In 2001, after attending the hearing of SRMCC 290 of 2000 he attempted to effect service upon the plaintiffs in their offices within Naivasha town. He was accompanied by police escort and Mr Muriuki, a security officer of the Defendant. The plaintiffs members on that day threatened to lynch them and set their vehicle ablaze but they were restrained by the police officers who had accompanied them. They warned him not to interfere with issues relating to the suit property. Again on or about 28th June, 2012 the plaintiff members became very aggressive towards the Defendant's officers to the extent that Police had to be called in to maintain peace. The deponent now fears for his safety and is not comfortable travelling from Nairobi to Nakuru and back to attend to this matter.
This application was first brought before me under certificate of urgency on 22nd February 2013. I certified the application urgent and directed that the applicants do serve the plaintiff/respondent with the hearing notice and return for interparties hearing on 21stMay 2013. An affidavit of service sworn on 11th June, 2013 by Elijah Moki John was filed stating that the plaintiff was served.
The application by the defence counsel is straight forward. In the replying affidavit by the plaintiff the same is not opposed. I have read the supporting affidavit. Counsel for the defendant is concerned about his safety while conducting this matter in Nakuru. He has enumerated instances when he really felt threatened. He is a court officer and desires to conduct matters without intimidation or anxiety over his personal safety.
I therefore direct this cause be transferred to Nairobi for eventual hearing and disposal. The Deputy Registrar is directed accordingly.
Costs in the cause.
Dated signed and delivered in open court this 4th day of October 2013
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE
Present
Mr Githui holding brief for Mr Lutta for Defendant/Applicant
N/A for the plaintiff/Respondent
Stephen Mwangi: Court Clerk
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE