[2002] KEHC 241 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction or that the claim exceeded its pecuniary limits. The applicant did not provide any new evidence or material facts to show that the damages would surpass the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 241 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dominic Mureithi t/a Polucon Services (K) Ltd.; Defendant: Joseph Wanyama & James Odera t/a Kontrol Services; Defendant: Kontrol Services (K) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 20 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Court Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Act, Magistrate Court Powers
- 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
Dominic Mureithi t/a Polucon Services (K) Ltd.
Plaintiff
Joseph Wanyama & James Odera t/a Kontrol Services
Defendant
Kontrol Services (K) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for transfer of the suit from the Chief Magistrate's Court to the High Court.
- 2 Whether the accruing interest or potential damages ousts the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the subordinate court lacks jurisdiction or that the claim exceeds its pecuniary limits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction or that the claim exceeded its pecuniary limits. The applicant did not provide any new evidence or material facts to show that the damages would surpass the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court. The court held that interest does not form part of damages for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, and that the applicant had not made out a strong case for transfer as required by law. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for transfer of Chief Magistrate’s Civil Suit No. 1361 of 2000 to the High Court is dismissed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2002
DOMINIC MUREITHI T/A POLUCON SERVICES (K) LTD. …….………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. JOSEPH WANYAMA & JAMES ODERA t/a
2. KONTROL SERVICES
KONTROL SERVICES (K) LTD …………………….. DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The Notice of Motion is brought under the provisions of order 50 rule 1, Sections 3A, 17 and 18 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 and seeks an order for the Transfer of Chief Magistrate’s Civil Suit No. 1361 of 2000 to the High Court for hearing and disposal. It is supported by an affidavit by Mr. Gachiri Kariuki, Counsel for the plaintiff. The Defendants filed Grounds of opposition.
Mr. Gachiri Kariuki submitted that the Chief Magistrate’s Court jurisdiction will be ousted by reason of the accruing interest.However Mr. Ouma and Mogaka submitted and rightly so that interest does not form part of the Damages for purposes of determining jurisdiction. An order for interest and costs is separate.
On the other point that the wrong committed by the Defendants is continuing and Damages are likely to be beyond the Chief Magistrate’s jurisdiction, no documents were annexed to show that the claim for Damages is likely to exceed the jurisdiction of that court. I have had the opportunity of scrutinizing the pleadings from the Court file in C.M.CC 1361 of 2000 and note that in the 3 prayer, the Plaintiffs prays for the following:
“ An order for payment by Defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff of amount found to be due to them on taking of such accounts”
From the wording of prayer 2 and 3 it is obvious the amounts are unknown and accounts must first be taken. However now the plaintiff is convinced that the amounts are likely to exceed the jurisdiction of that Court yet no new evidence or material facts have arisen. For a an order to transfer suit from an interior suit to a higher Court to succeed, it must be first shown that that court had jurisdiction. In the case of
KAGENYI VS MUSIDAMO & ANOTHER E.A. LR (1968) pg.45 Sir Udo
Udoma C.J. said:
“It is a well established principle of law that the onus is upon
the party applying for a case to be transferred from one Court to
another for due trial to make out a strong case to the satisfaction
of the Court that the application ought to be granted”
I have set out the brief points as submitted by Counsel for the applicant and in my considered view, he has neither shown that the subordinate court has jurisdiction to hear the matter as the stands or advanced a strong case to warrant the granting of the orders. In the circumstances, application fails with costs.
Dated and Delivered this 31st day of May, 2002.
P.M. TUTUI
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE