[2008] KEHC 290 (KLR)
The court found that the Naivasha Law Courts, currently headed by a magistrate with a pecuniary jurisdiction of only Kshs.1,000,000, lacked the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim, which exceeded that amount. The previous Chief Magistrate, who had sufficient jurisdiction, had been transferred and there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 290 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Gitau Kanyiri; Respondent: Charles R. Kahisa; Respondent: Ruth Wamaitha Muthumbi; Respondent: Ephraim K. Muongi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 384 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Court Jurisdiction, Case Management
- 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
Robert Gitau Kanyiri
Applicant
Charles R. Kahisa
Respondent
Ruth Wamaitha Muthumbi
Respondent
Ephraim K. Muongi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should withdraw and transfer Naivasha CMCC No. 978 of 2007 to itself for hearing and determination due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction at the magistrate's court.
- 2 Whether the absence of a Chief Magistrate with sufficient pecuniary jurisdiction at Naivasha Law Courts justifies the transfer of the suit.
- 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the suit is transferred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Naivasha Law Courts, currently headed by a magistrate with a pecuniary jurisdiction of only Kshs.1,000,000, lacked the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim, which exceeded that amount. The previous Chief Magistrate, who had sufficient jurisdiction, had been transferred and there was no likelihood of a replacement in the near future. The court held that it would be unjust to require the applicant to wait indefinitely for the appointment of a new Chief Magistrate. The respondents did not oppose the application, and there was no evidence that they would suffer prejudice from the transfer. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion under Section 18(1)(b)(i)...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Naivasha CMCC No. 918 of 2007 is withdrawn from the Naivasha Principal Magistrate’s Court and transferred to the High Court at Nakuru for hearing and determination.
- Costs of the application to be provided for.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc. Appli. 384 of 2008
ROBERT GITAU KANYIRI……….………………..…………APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHARLES R. KAHISA………………………..………1ST RESPONDENT
RUTH WAMAITHA MUTHUMBI……..…………...….2ND RESPONDENT
EPHRAIM K. MUONGI…………………...........……...3RD RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant, Robert Gitau Kanyiri prays that this Honourable Court be pleased to withdraw Naivasha CMCC No. 978 of 2007 – Robert Gitau Kanyiri –vs- Charles R. Kahisa & 2 Others from the Naivasha Principal Magistrate’s Court to the High Court for hearing and determination. The reasons for the application are that:-
(i) The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is in excess of over Kshs.1,00,000/=.
(ii) The Principal Magistrate or head of station at Naivasha Law Court has jurisdiction of only Kshs.1,000,000/=.
(iii) At the time of filing the suit, the Naivasha Law Courts were headed by Honourable Muchemi (C.M) who had jurisdiction of Kshs.3,000,000/= but she has since been transferred to another court and has not been replaced and there is also no likelihood that she will be replaced by another Chief Magistrate.
(iv) The defendants stand to suffer no prejudice should this application be allowed.
2. The application, brought by way of Notice of Motion under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 18 (1) (b) (i) of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law is also premised on the sworn affidavit of Julia Ngonyo Munyua who reiterates the grounds set out on the face of the application and also says that as an advocate of this Honourable Court, she has been made to understand that the station will continue to be headed by Hon. Njagi and therefore that there is no likelihood that a Chief Magistrate will be sent to the station soon. In the circumstances, Miss Munyua contended that the plaintiff should not be made to wait indefinitely for Naivasha Law Courts to receive a Chief Magistrate as head of station in order to deal with his case.
3. The application was not opposed though M/s Wekesa & Co. Advocates for the respondents were duly served with the same on the 27/06/2008. Miss Munyua submitted at the hearing that no prejudice would accrue to the respondents if the suit is transferred. She also submitted that the cause of action herein arose within the geographical jurisdiction of the High Court in Nakuru, though she said that all the parties reside in Nairobi and that for convenience the applicant wants this matter heard in Nairobi. I have looked at the Supporting Affidavit but cannot find any averment to the effect that the parties herein reside in Nairobi. The only reason given in both the grounds on the face of the application and the sworn affidavit is that the Chief Magistrate at the Naivasha Law Courts has since been transferred and left the station under the leadership of a magistrate whose pecuniary jurisdiction is only Kshs.1,000,000/=.
4. I have carefully considered the application and the provisions of the law under which the same is brought and I am persuaded that the following orders will meet the ends of justice:-
1. That Naivasha CMCC No. 918 of 2007 – Robert Gitau Kanyiri –vs- Charles R. Kahisa & 2 Others be and is hereby withdrawn from the Naivasha Principal Magistrate’s Court and transferred to the High Court at Nakuru for hearing and determination.
2. That costs of this application be provided for.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of July 2008.
R.N. SITATI
JUDGE