Maroa v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E057 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 514 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kehancha magistrate's court ruled it has no power to send a sugar dispute to arbitration; only the High Court can transfer such cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to transfer this case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a subordinate court to transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
The subordinate court lacks jurisdiction; transfer powers under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act belong to the High Court
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the High Court, on application by a party or on its own motion, to withdraw and transfer suits between courts. Section 17 covers suits capable of being instituted in two or more courts. A court's jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation (as per the Supreme Court in Samuel Kamau Macharia), and the subordinate court has no such transfer power. The defendant should approach the High Court.
Legal principles established
#- The power to withdraw and transfer a suit instituted in a subordinate court under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act vests exclusively in the High Court, not in a subordinate court
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant's oral application under Sugar Act section 47 for transfer of the case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (and Sugar Act section 47, invoked by the defendant)
Relief refused
#Transfer of the case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
The subordinate court lacks jurisdiction to transfer the matter; that power is a preserve of the High Court under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that this court lacks jurisdiction to transfer this matter from this court to the tribunal and dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. This is a preserve of the High Court.
A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.
Under Section 17 and 18 of the Act, upon an application by a party, or on its own motion, the High Court may transfer the suit to another subordinate court with territorial jurisdiction, when justice of the case demands such action.
It is therefore trite law that the limits of the Court in exercising a particular jurisdiction must be ascertained before the Court can proceed with the matter any further.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 14 August 2026, which appears to be a typographical error in the date of delivery
The parties' names are not stated anywhere in the ruling; only the roles 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendant' appear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maroa v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E057 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 514 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). KEHANCHA SPMC CC NO. E057 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/514/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.