EMD v DK (Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 25708 (KLR) (Family) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

This judgment has been anonymised to protect personal information in compliance with the law.
EMD v DK (Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 25708 (KLR) (Family) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

Introduction
1.The Application for determination is Notice of Motion dated 19th July 2023 in which the Applicant seeks for orders transferring this matter to the High Court at Kitui for hearing and determination.
2.The grounds on which the orders are sought are that the parties are resident in Kitui and the subject properties are all situated in Mwingi, Kitui County.
3.The Application is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 19th July 2023. The Applicant avers that the Respondent is herself serving as a Village Administrator at Kisama Village and it will be to the convenience of both parties if the matter is heard in Kitui.
4.It is stated that having the matter in Nairobi will inconvenience the Applicant and his witnesses and will compel him to bear additional costs which can be avoided if the matter is heard in Kitui.
5.The Respondent opposes the Application and has sworn an affidavit on 20th July 2023. She disputes that she is stationed in Mwingi and avers that she travels quite a bit and is often in Nairobi.
6.She contends that transferring the matter to Kitui would occasion delay in determining the matter.
7.The Court directed that the Application be canvassed by written submissions. The Respondents submissions are dated 19th October 2023.
8.The Respondent submits that the jurisdiction of the Court to transfer suits is set out under Section 18 as read with Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Respondent relies on the decisions in David Kabungu- v- Zikamunga & 4 Others HCCC No. 36 of 1996 (Ugandan Decision); Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Ltd- Vs Panda Flowers Ltd [2012] eKLR to support her contention that the Applicant has not laid a sufficient basis for the transfer of the matter to Kitui.
9.I have considered the pleadings and submissions filed herein and discern the following as the issues for determinationa.Whether the matter should be transferred to Kituib.Who should pay the costs of the suit
10.In his affidavit the Applicant states he resides in Kitui. Further the property in dispute is situate in Mwingi. He submits that in the event that the matter proceeds by viva voce evidence it will be expensive for him to meet the witness expenses in transporting them to Nairobi. That there is a court of competent jurisdiction in Kitui and the Respondent has not demonstrated any prejudice she will suffer if the matter is transferred to Kitui.
11.Based on the above I am satisfied that the Applicant has satisfied the criteria set out Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Ltd- Vs Panda Flowers Ltd [2012] eKLR I do not think that the Applicant has to demonstrate that he is on his knees and bleeding for the Court to allow for transfer. It is sufficient for him to demonstrate, as he has, that if the matter were to be heard in Nairobi he would be compelled to stretch an extra mile and no basis has been laid as to why he should.
12.Indeed Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya recognizes the right to access to justice, which includes physical access to courts.
13.For this reason, I allow the Application with no order as to costs
14.The file will be transferred to Kitui High Court for hearing and determination
It is so ordered
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.P. NYAUNDIJUDGEIn the presence of:Muigai for the Respondent/Applicant
▲ To the top