Issack Hajir Abdi v Ali Farah Mohamed & 3 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARSEN MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO. E00l OF 2021 ISSACK HAJIR ABDI......................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS ALI FARAH MOHAMED........................................................1 ST RESPONDENT ABDI.REHMAN ALI MOHAMED.........................................2 ND RESPONDENT NOOR MOHAMED DAKANE.............................................. 3 RD RESPONDENT EQUITY BANK- HOLA BRANCH....................................... 4 TH RESPONDENT Coram Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi Applicant in person Gekanana Advocate for the respondents RULING This is an application by the applicant seeking an order to transfer Hola Principal Magistrate's Civil Case No. 2 of 2020 from that registry to Garsen Senior Principal Magistrate's Court for hearing and determination. According to the applicant, the action was initially initiated at the Principal Magistrate Court at Hola but on account of the events that have taken place since instituting the suit as premised in the supporting affidavit, there is necessity to transfer the suit to another Court of equal status and jurisdiction. The respondents though served, failed to enter appearance or file any rejoinder to the application. Therefore, non-challenge to the application makes it easier for the Court to determine whether the applicant desire to move the suit from Hola Court to Garsen for adjudication has merit. Determination Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the Court to transfer suits from one subordinate Court to another. The conditions to meet by the applicant as stipulated in the provisions include interalia: Balance of consequence, questions of expense, undue hardship interest of justice, want of jurisdiction and for any sufficient reasons. (See case of David Kabungu v Zikarenga & 4 others, Kampala HCC No. 36 of 1995, Hangshore Agrochemicals Industries Ltd v Panda Flowers Ltd {2012} eKLR) In George Mwongera Mwenda Meru v Loise Gakii Misc. Application No. 70 of 2015 the Court held that: ''A superior Court, has the power to transfer causes from one subordinate Court to another for hearing and disposal. The Court went on to hold that the power served an important purpose in Law to attain the ends of and facilitate access to justice. That was why the Court could invoke and exercise the power suo moto." The requirement that before the Court will issue an order for transfer must meet the outlined criteria is a useful one but it cannot be applicable generally it depends largely on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. To that extent looking at Section 11 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is clear that the applicant has brought himself within the provisions of those

page 1 of 2