[2007] KEHC 2043 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established that the cause of action arose in Meru, the applicant and his witnesses reside in Meru, and the subject matter is in Meru. The respondent did not challenge these averments. Both the Milimani and Meru Chief Magistrate Courts have jurisdiction. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2043 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ndege M'Marangu; Respondent: National Bank of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 107 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application allowed
- 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
Ndege M'Marangu
Applicant
National Bank of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred from Milimani Chief Magistrate Court to Meru Chief Magistrate Court for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending the transfer.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for transfer under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established that the cause of action arose in Meru, the applicant and his witnesses reside in Meru, and the subject matter is in Meru. The respondent did not challenge these averments. Both the Milimani and Meru Chief Magistrate Courts have jurisdiction. The court exercised its discretion to transfer the suit to Meru to avoid unnecessary expense and inconvenience to the applicant, as there was no valid reason for the suit to have been instituted in Nairobi. The application for transfer was therefore granted, and costs awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Milimani Chief Magistrate Civil Case No.13291 of 2004 is transferred to the Chief Magistrate Court at Meru for trial and final determination.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of this application to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MERU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2006
NDEGE M’MARANGU.........................………….….………APPLICANT
VERSUS
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA.....................……………RESPONDENT
RULING
This application seeks in the main two prayers, namely, that there be a stay of proceedings in Milimani Chief Magistrate Civil Case No.13291 of 2004 and two, that the said Milimani Chief Magistrate Civil Case No.13291 of 2004 be transferred to Meru Chief Magistrate’s for hearing and final determination. The application is based on the grounds that the cause of action arose in Meru, the applicant and his potential witnesses reside in Meru, the subject matter is in Meru while the respondent’s witnesses are likely to be drawn from its Meru Branch.
Despite service by the applicant of the application the respondent has not filed a response. However, counsel holding brief for counsel representing the respondent argued that the application is bound to delay the hearing of the suit which is scheduled for November, 2007.
The High Court, under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, can, on the application of a party or on its own motion, at any stage, withdraw a suit pending in a subordinate court and transfer it for trial and disposal to any subordinate court competent to try the same.
These are wide powers exercised only subject to the court being satisfied that the court seized of the case and that to which it is sought to be transferred have jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Sections 12 to 16 of the Civil Procedure Act outlines the Guidelines on where suits can be instituted. Relevant to this application is Section 15. The applicant has averred that he resides in Meru; that the cause of action arose in Meru; that the loan in question was obtained from the respondent’s branch in Meru and that all potential witnesses are likely to be drawn from Meru.
These averments have not been challenged. I find no reason at all why the suit was instituted in Nairobi. The subordinate court at Milimani, Nairobi has jurisdiction so does the Chief Magistrate Court at Meru.
I will exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant who would otherwise be subjected to unnecessary travel and other expenses in defending the suit in Nairobi.
In the result Milimani Chief Magistrate Civil Case No.13291 of 2004 is ordered to be transferred to the Chief Magistrate Court at Meru for trial and final determination.
The respondent to pay to the applicant the costs of this application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 18th DAY OF May, 2007.
W. OUKO
JUDGE