[2016] KEHC 3083 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant insurance company has offices in Maua and Meru, and the contract of insurance was signed at Nyeri, with the accident giving rise to the claim occurring along Maua-Nyeri Road, the suit could properly be instituted in Nairobi, Nyeri, or Maua. The presence of the applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 3083 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Real Insurance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Abdia Diria Adow
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts, Venue of Suit, Insurance Contract Disputes
- 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
Real Insurance Co. Ltd
Applicant
Abdia Diria Adow
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit Maua CMCC NO 149 of 2015 should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate Court at Nairobi for hearing and disposal.
- 2 Whether the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Maua has jurisdiction to hear the suit given the location of the cause of action and the parties' offices.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant insurance company has offices in Maua and Meru, and the contract of insurance was signed at Nyeri, with the accident giving rise to the claim occurring along Maua-Nyeri Road, the suit could properly be instituted in Nairobi, Nyeri, or Maua. The presence of the applicant's branch offices in Maua and the connection of the cause of action to the Maua-Nyeri area justified the plaintiff's choice of venue. The court found no compelling reason to transfer the suit to Nairobi, as doing so would hinder access to justice and impose unnecessary costs on claimants. The application for transfer was therefore dismissed, and the suit was ordered to proceed at Maua.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 28th September, 2015 is dismissed.
- Maua CMCC NO 149 of 2015 between Abdia Diria Adow vs Real Insurance Co. Ltd will be heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction within the Chief Magistrates Court at Maua.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 68 OF 2015
REAL INSURANCE CO. LTD................................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
ABDIA DIRIA ADOW....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Transfer of suit
[1] By application dated 28th September, 2015,the applicant seeks the transfer of Maua CMCC NO 149 of 2015 to Chief Magistrate Court at Nairobi for hearing and disposal. The case to be transferred is between the Respondent and the Applicant as plaintiff and defendant respectively. The said application is expressed to be made under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 15,17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is grounded on the reasons set out in the application and deposed to in the Affidavit of John Maina Ngechu, Advocate. I understood the Applicant to be saying that the suit should be transferred because; (1) the cause of action in the suit relates to an insurance policy which was effected within Nairobi County; (2) the applicants’ Principal and Registered office is situated within Nairobi County; (3) the applicant has no connection with Maua which may justify the filing of the suit at Maua; and (4) filing such suit at Maua will be prejudicial to,as it will make the applicant to suffer unnecessary costs in defending it. Accordingly, they requested for the suit to be transferred to Nairobi.
[2] The Respondent opposed transfer of the suit to Nairobi and filed a Replying Affidavit to that effect. The Respondent deposed that the cause of action arose at Nyeri as the contract of insurance was consummated at Nyeri. In any case, the Respondent argued that the Applicant carries out business all over Kenya and more specifically at Maua Town and Meru Town where it has offices at Gaciongo and Makutano, respectively. Therefore, the Respondent was of the view that the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Maua has jurisdiction to hear the suit filed. They urged the court to refuse the request for transfer of the suit for being unmerited.
DETERMINATION
Power to transfer suit
[3] The High Court as a Superior Court has power to transfer any suit from one magistrate court to another or to itself for hearing and disposal. The said power is enacted in Section 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. I have considered the arguments presented and the pleadings filed; I do not have anyreasons to doubt that the Applicant carried out insurance business all over Kenya and it has offices in various towns including Maua and Meru. There is also no doubt that lawful businesses of insurance are transacted and contracts of insurance are signed by the insured at these branch offices. Therefore, it would be quite imprudent for an insurance company to insist that a rule of law should be formulated to the effectthat they can only be sued in Nairobi where their Principal registered offices are situated. Such proposition would be most oblivious of the fact that a suit could be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose; it would also be a great hindrance of access to justice and will certainly occasion unnecessary costs on a great number of people who may have claims against insurance companies. Accordingly, I take the view that, in determining the place to sue such company with lawful offices in several places in Kenya especially insurance companies, it is fair and just for courts to consider the place where the contract was transacted or the cause of action arose. In such case, I think the proper yardstick would be to treat this case as suits which may be instituted in more than one court. In this case, the Applicant’s principal office is in Nairobi but with branch offices in Nyeri and Maua; the contract was signed by the insured at Nyeri – at least from the plaint. The alleged wrong which constitutes the cause of action herein, is an accident which occurred along Maua-Nyeri Road. Accordingly the suit arising out of the said policy of insurance based on the accident which occurred along Maua-Nyeri Road could be instituted in either at Nairobi or Nyeri or Maua at the option of the Plaintiff. The company herein has offices at Maua and so, in the circumstances of this case, I do not see any reason of transferring the suit herein to Nairobi. In the upshot, I dismiss the application dated 28th September, 2015. Case number MAUA CMCC NO 149 of 2015 between ABDIA DIRIA ADOW vs REAL INSURANCE CO. LTD will be heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction within the hierarchy of the Chief Magistrates Court at Maua. Each party shall bear own costs of the application. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Meru in open court this 22nd September, 2016.
......................
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Kaimba advocate for Mr. Githae advocate for applicant
Mr. Ondari advocate for Mr Mbogo advocate for respondent.
......................
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE