[2023] KEHC 2682 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 2682 (KLR)

The court found that it was unable to determine the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and extra-territorial application of the Constitution because the contract document, which is central to the objection, was not accessible in the court record. The annextures to the applicant's Affidavit could not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 2682 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joan Mumbua Muli Ndunda; Respondent: Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E417 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Preliminary Objection; Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Interlocutory order; matter adjourned for provision of documents.
Judges
AC Mrima
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Extra Territorial Application, Choice of Law Clauses
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Jurisdiction of High Court Extra Territorial Application Choice of Law Clauses

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Mumbua Muli Ndunda

Applicant

Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Preliminary Objection; Interlocutory Order

  1. 1 Whether the High Court of Kenya has jurisdiction over a dispute involving a contract with an exclusive choice of law and jurisdiction clause.
  2. 2 Whether the Kenyan Constitution applies extra-territorially to the contract in question.
  3. 3 Whether the court can determine the preliminary objection without access to the contract document.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it was unable to determine the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and extra-territorial application of the Constitution because the contract document, which is central to the objection, was not accessible in the court record. The annextures to the applicant's Affidavit could not be opened electronically and were not available in the physical file. Without the contract, the court could not assess the validity or effect of the choice of law and jurisdiction clause. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to provide a complete copy of the Affidavit and annextures, and to upload the documents to the Court Tracking System, before the matter could proceed...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order; matter adjourned for provision of documents.

Orders

  • The Petitioner shall forward a complete copy of the Affidavit in support of the Petition together with the annextures thereto to the Hon. Deputy Registrar.
  • The Petitioner shall upload another set of the annextures unto the Court Tracking System (CTS).