1. When this matter came up before the court today, 28th May 2026, for directions, an issue arose as to whether it ought to remain before this court or be transferred to the High Court at Nairobi for hearing and determination.
2. Mr. Weche, learned counsel for the 2nd to 5th respondents, applied for the transfer of this matter to the High Court at Nairobi. Counsel submitted that the Nairobi matter, namely Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026, raises substantially similar issues to those raised in the present proceedings.
3. Counsel further submitted that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was filed on 16th May 2026 whereas the present matter was filed on 17th May 2026. It was contended that allowing the two matters to proceed separately before courts of concurrent jurisdiction may result in conflicting findings and duplication of proceedings.
4. Ms. Achieng, learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents, supported the application and associated herself with the submissions made by Mr. Weche. Counsel submitted that transfer of the matter would promote the orderly administration of justice and avoid inconsistent decisions.
5. Mr. Ochoki, learned counsel for the petitioner, opposed the application. Counsel submitted that the application was premature since responses had not yet been filed in the matter. Counsel further argued that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 had been filed by a private party whereas the present petition had been instituted by the Law Society of Kenya and that the matters were therefore distinguishable.
6. Counsel further stated that he would consider applying for the transfer of the Nairobi matter to Nyamira instead. It was therefore urged that sufficient grounds had not been established to warrant transfer of the present proceedings.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and the material placed before the court.
8. The power of the court to transfer proceedings is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously in furtherance of the interests of justice. In exercising that discretion, the court takes into account such considerations as avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, efficient utilization of judicial resources, expeditious disposal of disputes, and the need to avoid conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
9. I appreciate the concerns raised by Mr. Ochoki. However, I do not find the same persuasive in the circumstances of this matter. The fact that responses had not yet been filed does not bar the court from considering the question of the appropriate forum at this stage of the proceedings. Equally, the fact that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was instituted by a different party does not detract from the reality that the matters raise substantially similar issues touching on the same dispute regarding the directors and related corporate affairs.
10. It is not disputed that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was filed earlier, on 16th May 2026, whereas the present matter was filed on 17th May 2026. It is also apparent that directions have already been issued in the Nairobi matter. In my view, permitting the matters to proceed independently before different courts of concurrent jurisdiction may expose the parties to the risk of inconsistent findings and unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
11. The interests of justice would therefore be better served by having the matters handled within the same forum. I am also satisfied that no prejudice shall be occasioned to the petitioner if the matter is transferred.
12. Consequently, I find merit in the application.
13. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
a. This matter is hereby transferred to the High Court at Nairobi to be mentioned on 2nd June 2026 together with MILIMANI CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION HCCHRPET E039 of 2026.
b. The Deputy Registrar shall forthwith facilitate the transfer of the court file to the High Court at Nairobi.
2. Mr. Weche, learned counsel for the 2nd to 5th respondents, applied for the transfer of this matter to the High Court at Nairobi. Counsel submitted that the Nairobi matter, namely Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026, raises substantially similar issues to those raised in the present proceedings.
3. Counsel further submitted that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was filed on 16th May 2026 whereas the present matter was filed on 17th May 2026. It was contended that allowing the two matters to proceed separately before courts of concurrent jurisdiction may result in conflicting findings and duplication of proceedings.
4. Ms. Achieng, learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents, supported the application and associated herself with the submissions made by Mr. Weche. Counsel submitted that transfer of the matter would promote the orderly administration of justice and avoid inconsistent decisions.
5. Mr. Ochoki, learned counsel for the petitioner, opposed the application. Counsel submitted that the application was premature since responses had not yet been filed in the matter. Counsel further argued that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 had been filed by a private party whereas the present petition had been instituted by the Law Society of Kenya and that the matters were therefore distinguishable.
6. Counsel further stated that he would consider applying for the transfer of the Nairobi matter to Nyamira instead. It was therefore urged that sufficient grounds had not been established to warrant transfer of the present proceedings.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and the material placed before the court.
8. The power of the court to transfer proceedings is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously in furtherance of the interests of justice. In exercising that discretion, the court takes into account such considerations as avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, efficient utilization of judicial resources, expeditious disposal of disputes, and the need to avoid conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
9. I appreciate the concerns raised by Mr. Ochoki. However, I do not find the same persuasive in the circumstances of this matter. The fact that responses had not yet been filed does not bar the court from considering the question of the appropriate forum at this stage of the proceedings. Equally, the fact that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was instituted by a different party does not detract from the reality that the matters raise substantially similar issues touching on the same dispute regarding the directors and related corporate affairs.
10. It is not disputed that Milimani HCCHRPET E039 of 2026 was filed earlier, on 16th May 2026, whereas the present matter was filed on 17th May 2026. It is also apparent that directions have already been issued in the Nairobi matter. In my view, permitting the matters to proceed independently before different courts of concurrent jurisdiction may expose the parties to the risk of inconsistent findings and unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
11. The interests of justice would therefore be better served by having the matters handled within the same forum. I am also satisfied that no prejudice shall be occasioned to the petitioner if the matter is transferred.
12. Consequently, I find merit in the application.
13. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
a. This matter is hereby transferred to the High Court at Nairobi to be mentioned on 2nd June 2026 together with MILIMANI CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION HCCHRPET E039 of 2026.
b. The Deputy Registrar shall forthwith facilitate the transfer of the court file to the High Court at Nairobi.