Rajan Rajnikant Dhanani v Benson Kinuthia Muiruri & 2 others

3. It is the Applicant’s case that Hon. Kinyanjui sitting in Kiambu noted that the said land was situated in Gatundu hence the appropriate territorial jurisdiction of Gatundu Law Courts and ordered the case to be transferred to the said court. Further, the Applicant holds that there are two other suits at Gatundu Law Courts, being Gatundu MCELC no. 53 of 2022, Moses Nyaga Mbugua & Others v Edward Gatiba Mbugua and Rajan Gajnikant Dhanani and MCELC no.28 of 2019, Rajan Rajnikant Dhanani v Harrison Mbugua Nyaga and Another in respect of the same property, which are still pending hearing and determination and has since been determined respectively, that it would be in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. 4. The Application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Edward Gativa Mbugua sworn on 15th January, 2025 on the basis that it lacks merit, given that the trial court had already ordered for transfer of the Kiambu MCELC Case No.E071 of 2022 and there is no evidence that the staff ignored or failed to adhere to the court order which was never actually served with. The 3rd Respondent further went on to explain the facts of the case which the court cannot delve in. 5. I have considered the arguments by either parties in regard to the prayer the Applicant seeks and find that the main issues for determination is whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold to warrant the transfer the suit from one subordinate court to another. The jurisdiction of the High Court to transfer suits from one Court to another is provided for under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act which states as follows:1. 2. 6. On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court may at any stage— a. transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or b. withdraw any suit or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it, and thereafter— i. try or dispose of the same; or ii. transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or iii. retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn. Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn as aforesaid, the court which thereafter tries such suit may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.” In the case of David Kabungu v Zikarenga & 4 Others Kampala HCCS no. 36 of 1995, the Court in determining the circumstances under which the order to transfer suits may be granted stated as follows:“ Section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court the general power to transfer all suits and this power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings even suo moto by the court without application by any party. The burden lies on the Applicant to make out a strong case for the transfer..." https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19308/eng@2025-11-03 2

page 2 of 3

7. In this particular case, it has clearly been shown, and not rebutted, that the dispute herein is in respect to a suit property which is situated in Gatundu and thus in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction, the appropriate court to handle the dispute is Gatundu Law courts . However, I have looked at the title of the case and find it is titled Kiambu MCELC Case no. E071 of 2022, which is a clear indication that the suit involves the Environment and Land Court, hence this court being a High Court , lacks the supervisory powers over Magistrates Environment and Land Courts as this is a preserve of the Environment and Land Court which is situated in Thika. Therefore, this present application ought to have been filed before the Thika Environment and Land Court. For this reason, this court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to transfer the file from Kiambu Chief Magistrate’s Court to Gatundu Law Courts and proceeds to order that:a. The Notice of Motion application dated 11th December, 2024 be and is hereby struck out. b. Costs to be paid to the Respondents. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the presence of: No appearance for and by either party Court Assistant – Martin/Sakina https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19308/eng@2025-11-03 3

page 3 of 3