[2023] KEELC 17599 (KLR)
The court found that the application for transfer was merited because there was an existing order for this suit and ELC 950 of 2014 to be heard alongside each other, and that order could not be effectuated if the matters were before different judges. The plaintiff had previously not objected to the matters being...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 17599 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Anthony Odhiambo Odundo; Defendant: Kukam Limited; Defendant: Metra Investment Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 693 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed; suit to be transferred to Justice J.A Mogeni; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Judicial Discretion, Related Matters, Contractual Obligations
- 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
Anthony Odhiambo Odundo
Plaintiff
Kukam Limited
Defendant
Metra Investment Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be transferred to Justice J.A Mogeni for determination.
- 2 Whether the subject matter of this suit is sufficiently related to other suits previously before Justice Mogeni to warrant transfer.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the transfer of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for transfer was merited because there was an existing order for this suit and ELC 950 of 2014 to be heard alongside each other, and that order could not be effectuated if the matters were before different judges. The plaintiff had previously not objected to the matters being heard together and had not sought review of the order. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to transfer the suit to Justice J.A Mogeni, finding no plausible reason for the plaintiff's change of position and holding that the transfer would not prejudice the plaintiff. The court emphasized the need for consistency, efficiency, and avoidance of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; suit to be transferred to Justice J.A Mogeni; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The suit is transferred to Justice J.A Mogeni for determination.
- Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Odundo v Kukam Limited & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 693 of 2016) [2023] KEELC 17599 (KLR) (25 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 17599 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 693 of 2016
LN Mbugua, J
May 25, 2023
Between
Anthony Odhiambo Odundo
Plaintiff
and
Kukam Limited
1st Defendant
Metra Investment Limited
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. Before me is the defendants’ application dated 21. 2.2023 seeking orders that the suit be transferred to the Honourable Justice J.A Mogeni for determination. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 21. 2.2023 by Rahab Mukiama who describes herself as a director in each of the Defendant Company.
2. She avers that the subject of this suit is the property known as Nairobi Block /72/3081 and that the said property has been the substrum of Nairobi ELC 561 of 2014 which has been heard and determined and judgement rendered by the Honourable Justice J.A Mogeni. She further avers that Nairobi ELC No. 950 of 2014 whose substrum relates to the same property was transferred to Hon. Lady Justice Mogeni by a consent of the parties therein recorded before Judge Mbugua on 21 .2. 2023. She adds that the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any manner should this Court order a transfer.
3. The application is opposed by the plaintiff vide his replying Affidavit sworn on 2. 3.2023. He avers that the application lacks merit terming it as an application for recusal. He avers that the crux of the present suit does not relate to the property known as Nairobi Block 72/3081, it concerns defendant’s failure to fulfill their contractual obligations in issuing him a full refund of the balance of ksh.4,080,000/= being the sums that he paid to the Defendants towards purchase of a housing unit erected on the said property.
4. He contends that the fact that parties in ELC No. 950 of 2014 consented to that suit being transferred to Mogeni J should not automatically render this suit equally ripe for transfer before the Honourable Judge since the substrum between the said suit and this suit are substantially and materially different.
5. Parties did not file written submissions as directed by this court on 6. 3.2023.
6. I have considered the rival arguments as well as the record of the court file. The decision whether to transmit this matter to Lady Justice Mogeni is discretionary. This court has jurisdiction under section 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
7. The proceedings of 17. 11. 2020 indicate that the defence counsel had made an oral application for this case to be heard alongside ELC 950 of 2021, of which counsel for the plaintiff indicated that they had no objection. Thereafter on 28. 6.2021, counsel for the plaintiff again brought the issue to the attention of the court that the two matters were related, adding that “determination of the issues in 950 of 2014 will dispose this suit”. Consequently, the court (Judge Eboso sitting) made an order for the two matters to be heard alongside each other. That order is still in force, but cannot be effectuated if the two matters are before different judges.
8. In the case of Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Law Society of Kenya [2020] eKLR, the court stated that;“Litigation is not a game of chess where players outsmart themselves by dexterity of purpose and traps. On the contrary, litigation is a contest by judicial process where the parties place on the table of justice their different position clearly, plainly and without tricks”.
9. No plausible explanation has been advanced as to why the plaintiffs have suddenly changed tune, yet they have not sought a review of the orders given on 28. 6.2021. All in all, I find that the application dated 21. 2.2023 is merited, the same is allowed and each party is to bear their own costs of the application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ndolo for defendantCourt assistant: Eddel