Dominic Kiminta Alias Mamboleo T/A Kajiado Tv . 1st Applicant Kaloita Media & 1 other v Joseph Ole Lenku

4. That the Defendants who reside in Nairobi will have to be travelling to Kajiado for the suit. 3. The Respondent opposed the Application through a Replying Affidavit and a Preliminary Objection dated 28th August 2025. Both of which are on the premise that there is a High Court in Kajiado County hence that this Application should have been filed in Kajiado; and that the power to transfer suits is a supervisory power. 4. This Court directed that the Objection and the Application be heard and determined together. The hearing was on 6th November 2025. Determination 5. I have read the Application (together with its Supporting Affidavit and annextures). I have also read the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit and Preliminary Objection to the Application. I have further considered the parties’ rival submissions as well as the legal authorities cited by their advocates. 6. On the Preliminary Objection, this Court finds that the Objection raises a procedural point of law and has not challenged the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this Application. Its argument is not on want of jurisdiction, but a house-keeping one. That for good order and organization, this Application should have preferably been filed in the High Court at Kajiado, and not here in Nairobi. 7. I find that, that is not a jurisdictional issue. Neither is it a pure point of law in the nature of what used to be called a demurer that can terminate this Application in limine. In any case, there is only one High Court in Kenya (The High Court of Kenya), and which sits in various stations- Nairobi and Kajiado stations among others. The Objection is therefore not a proper Preliminary Objection in terms of the holding in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696. 8. This Application therefore has to be determined on its merits, if any. I have considered the Application and the Respondent’s response, especially as to the reasons given for the plea for transfer. Court processes should neither be abstract nor an academic exercise. Besides, judicial time and judicial resources are scarce. Hence have to be deployed for practical purposes and to serve justice. Besides, any claims and/or allegations made before a court of law, ought to be reasonable and logical; be supported by evidence; and be followed by tangible proof. The Applicant’s Misgivings and Fears 9. Upon distilling the reasons proffered by the Applicant for transfer of that suit from Kajiado to Nairobi, I find that they are largely based on speculation and the fear of the unknown. Mainly, that the Plaintiff being the Governor of Kajiado County, he is an influential person in that County. Hence that courts in that County are likely to be intimidated by him, are likely to be biased and decide cases in his favour. 10. Nothing can be farther from the truth. These are merely misgivings and fear of the unknown. Judicial bias is totally beyond such misgivings. Besides, the judicial process has enough safeguards for due process and fair trial of cases. There is also the avenue of appeal, should a litigant be dissatisfied with the eventual outcome of a suit or case. 11. The judicature is an independent arm of government, that does not work under the instructions and directions of the executive as feared by the Defendant. For that reason, courts in Kajiado County do not work under the direction and control of the County’s Governor Hon Ole Lenku, however powerful he may be perceived in that region. 12. Besides, any misgivings and concerns regarding the impartiality of any judicial officer, ought to be raised before that judicial officer. Such cannot be raised at first instance, on a transfer Application such as this. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2656/eng@2026-01-22 2

page 2 of 3

Whether the Defamation Suit Should Have Been Filed in Nairobi 13. Citing Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Applicants have argued that the subject suit should have been filed in Nairobi and not Kajiado. As that the cause of action arose in Nairobi and not Kajiado, and that the Defendants are based in Nairobi. 14. The Applicants have in this Application not provided any evidence that Dominic Kiminta resides in Nairobi County and not Kajiado County; or that the cause of action solely occurred in Nairobi and not partly in Nairobi and partly in Kajiado. It is not for this Court to speculate on those two facts. Besides, the subject suit is, as stated in the Application, a defamation suit relating to a media broadcast. Which broadcasts may and often occur in multiple locations, simultaneously. These are factual issues that need to be established through evidence. 15. In conclusion, this Court finds that while the misgivings, suspicion and fears propounded by that Applicants for this Application are psychologically attractive and sensational, they are not legally sufficient. To justify and prompt this Court’s intervention, such allegations need not only be psychologically compelling, but also legally sufficient, and supported by proof. 16. In the end therefore, I find no legally sufficient merits in this Application, and hereby dismiss it with costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2656/eng@2026-01-22 3

page 3 of 3