[2019] KEHC 11249 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the pleadings, it could not be conclusively stated that the suit was filed in a court without jurisdiction, as both parties resided in Nairobi and there were no details regarding where the contract was entered into, performed, or where payment was to take place. The court held that it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11249 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Victor Ogutu Arnold; Respondent: David K. Cheruiyot
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 352 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit and Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application allowed; preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suits, Territorial Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Victor Ogutu Arnold
Applicant
David K. Cheruiyot
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit and Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a suit filed in a court that allegedly lacks territorial jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction to transfer the suit is merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the pleadings, it could not be conclusively stated that the suit was filed in a court without jurisdiction, as both parties resided in Nairobi and there were no details regarding where the contract was entered into, performed, or where payment was to take place. The court held that it had jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer the suit. The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the application to transfer the suit to Sotik Magistrate’s Court was allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed; preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The Preliminary Objection dated 12th July, 2018 is dismissed.
- The application dated 18th June, 2018 is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL MISC APPL. NO. 352 OF 2018
VICTOR OGUTU ARNOLD.................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DAVID K. CHERUIYOT...................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 18th June, 2018 seeks orders that the honourable court be pleased to transfer Milimani CMCC No. 514 of 2013 to the Sotik Magistrate’s Court for hearing and final determination.
2. According to the grounds and the affidavit in support of the application, the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court Milimani in an application for the striking out of the defence ruled that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the suit herein.
3. In response, the Respondent filed the Preliminary Objection dated 12th July, 2018 on the grounds that:
1. The honourable court lacks jurisdiction to transfer a suit filed in court not seized with jurisdiction to handle.
2. The application is incompetent and bad in law.
4. Both the application and the Preliminary Objection were argued simultaneously by way of written submissions. I have considered the said submissions.
5. It’s not contested that the suit herein was filed at Milimani Commercial Courts, Nairobi and that the lower court has held that the suit ought to have been filed at Sotik law courts. The question is whether this court has the requisite jurisdiction to transfer the same.
6. This court is empowered under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer suits on application by the parties or on it’s own motion in accordance with the said provision.
7. Under Section 14 & 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for compensation or for wrong done to the person or to moveable property may be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the cause of action arose or where the Defendant(s) resides or works.
8. In the case at hand, it is pleaded that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant reside in Nairobi. There are no details pleaded regarding where the contract the subject of the suit was entered into or where the performance thereof was to take place nor where the payment was to take place. Based on the pleadings, it cannot be conclusively stated that the suit was filed in a court without jurisdiction.
9. With the foregoing, the Preliminary Objection dated 12th July, 2018 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I allow the application. The suit is hereby transferred to Sotik Magistrate’s Court. Costs in cause.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi this 8th day of April, 2019
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE