John Mureithi Githinji v Thomas Ireri Ngai & another [2019] KEELC 2970 (KLR)

The court construed section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which permits withdrawal and re-transfer of suits from subordinate courts. It rejected the Respondents' argument that the power cannot be exercised where the Applicant himself had initially sought the transfer, holding that the statutory power to transfer and re-transfer remains available so long as sufficient cause is demonstrated. However, on the facts, no such cause was established.

The court observed that no order or pronouncement from Siakago Law Courts declining jurisdiction was exhibited, and that even such an expression would not bind it. The Applicant did not contend that no judicial officer at Siakago was gazetted to handle environment and land matters, nor that the officers lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The jurisdictional ground therefore failed for want of demonstration.

The court perused the plaint and identified the reliefs: reversion to the original common boundary per a mutation, amendment of the lands office map, removal of concrete beacons and iron bars fencing, and general damages. It found these were not declaratory orders as the Applicant claimed, was unaware of any legal provision restricting Magistrates' courts from granting declaratory relief in environment and land matters, and concluded the Applicant was not candid.

The court noted two defects: first, no valuation report or documentary evidence backed the asserted value of Ksh. 24 million; second, the further affidavit could not support a ground never pleaded in the original notice of motion. The court concluded the alleged value was fabricated to salvage a failing application, reinforcing its finding that the Applicant was not candid with the court.