Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateDismissedKEHANCHA SPMC CC NO. E018 OF 2024· [2026] KEMC 519 (KLR)

Robert v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E018 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 519 (KLR)

Senior Principal Magistrate's Court at Kehancha
14 August 2026
JNJ.P. NANDI
769 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kehancha magistrate court ruled it cannot transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal — only the High Court can do that in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant's counsel made an oral application under section 47 of the Sugar Act seeking transfer of this Kehancha subordinate court case (CC No. E018 of 2024) to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal. Plaintiff's counsel opposed, relying on sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, and submitted that the power to transfer matters lies with the High Court, not the subordinate court. The court framed a single issue: whether it has jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Tribunal. The court set out section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, which vests the High Court with power to withdraw and transfer suits from subordinate courts on application of a party or on its own motion, and drew on Julius Lekuruito & Another v Nottingham Mwangi & Another (2018) eKLR for the proposition that the High Court may transfer suits between subordinate courts when the justice of the case demands. It also invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others on the principle that a court's jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be arrogated beyond what is conferred by law. The court distinguished section 17 (where a suit may be instituted in two or more courts) from section 18 (general transfer power). Concluding that the transfer power is a preserve of the High Court, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction, advising the defendant to approach the appropriate forum. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the subordinate court has jurisdiction to transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal

Holding

It does not; the power to withdraw and transfer cases lies with the High Court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the High Court to withdraw and transfer suits from subordinate courts on application of any party or on its own motion. The court relied on Julius Lekuruito and the Supreme Court's jurisdictional pronouncement in Samuel Kamau Macharia that a court cannot arrogate jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution or written law confers. Since no provision empowers the subordinate court to transfer matters, the application fails.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction to transfer suits between courts under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act vests in the High Court alone, not subordinate courts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant's oral application to transfer the case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act; Sugar Act section 47 (invoked by defendant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E018 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). KEHANCHA SPMC CC NO. E018 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/519/eng@2026-08-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.