[2013] KEHC 6097 (KLR)
The court found that both Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court and Kikuyu Law Court are within Kiambu County and are roughly equidistant from Nairobi. There was no clear evidence regarding the precise territorial boundary relevant to the cause of action, nor any demonstrated advantage in terms of cost or convenience for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6097 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tamarind Management Ltd; Applicant: Joyce Ndungwa Dennis; Respondent: Mary Nyambura Ndungu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 6 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Territorial Jurisdiction, Court Convenience
- 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
Tamarind Management Ltd
Applicant
Joyce Ndungwa Dennis
Applicant
Mary Nyambura Ndungu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit in Kiambu CMCC No. 199 of 2011 should be withdrawn and transferred to Kikuyu Law Court for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
- 3 Whether transferring the suit would serve the interests of convenience or justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court and Kikuyu Law Court are within Kiambu County and are roughly equidistant from Nairobi. There was no clear evidence regarding the precise territorial boundary relevant to the cause of action, nor any demonstrated advantage in terms of cost or convenience for either party if the suit were transferred. The application was deemed academic and lacking in merit, as transferring the suit would not serve any practical purpose and would only delay the final determination of the case. The court emphasized that the application was not about disqualifying the Kikuyu Law Court, but solely about transfer, and found no justification for granting...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application to transfer the suit from Kiambu Chief Magistrate's Court to Kikuyu Law Court is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2013
1. TAMARIND MANAGEMENT LTD
2. JOYCE NDUNGWA DENNIS......................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
MARY NYAMBURA NDUNGU.......................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicants, the defendants in Kiambu CMCC No. 199 of 2011, seek withdrawal of the suit from thatcourt and transfer of the same to Kikuyu Law Court for hearing and determination. The application is stated to be brought under sections1A, 1B, 3A, 15 & 17 of the CivilProcedure Act, Cap.21(the Act) and Order 47,Rule 6(2)andOrder 51, Rule1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (theRules).
2. The main groundfor the application is that the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Kikuyu Law Court, and further that it would be convenient for the Respondent and the 2nd Applicant who reside in Kikuyu. It is further stated that the 1stApplicant’s place of business is in Nairobi.In other words, the Applicants claim that the Kiambu Chief Magistrate is not clothed with the necessary territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
3. The Respondent, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, opposes the application upon the main ground that it is the same distance from Nairobi to Kikuyu as from Nairobi to Kiambu. She also states that she is apprehensive she might not get justice at Kikuyu Law Court because of the manner in which that court handled the issue of inquest involving the same parties.
4. I have read the affidavit sworn in support of the application and that sworn inreply. They are both essentially arguments for the respective positions of the parties asalready stated.
5. It is not clear where the boundary of the territorial jurisdictions between Kiambu Chief Magistrate’s Court and Kikuyu Law Court is in relation to where the accident giving rise to the suit occurred. It is even not clear if there is such boundary! Both courts are within Kiambu County and probably less than 20 kilometres separate the two. I also accept that both courts are roughly equidistant from Nairobi. It is therefore just academic as to which of the two courts the plaintiff should have instituted her suit.
6. There is really no point in the present application and it is a waste of the court’s time. Transferring the suit from Kiambu to Kikuyu will not add value at all and will not have any impact upon the parties in terms of cost or convenience of travel. It would only occasion delay to the final determination of the case.
7. The application is entirely without merit and I must refuse it. In doing so I must also state that I am not here dealing with an application to disqualify the Kikuyu Law Court for whatever reason from hearing and determining the case. The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 4THDAY OF JUNE 2013
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 7THDAY OF JUNE 2013