' Background and Introduction
1. I have carefully considered the application dated 16th May 2025, together with the replying affidavit filed in opposition thereto and the written submissions of the parties. The application seeks the transfer of the instant petition to Narok High Court for hearing and determination. The primary reason advanced is the applicant’s disagreement with the computation of taxed costs and the calculation of interest on the principal sums.
2. It is noteworthy that the current petition is based on an insolvency debt that includes the aforementioned amounts. The respondents have not contested that all the decrees forming the basis of the petition were heard and finalized at the Narok Chief Magistrate’s Court.
Analysis and Determination
3. Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act confers inherent power upon this Court to make orders necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process. In exercising this power, the Court’s primary guiding principle is the overriding objective, which aims to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
4. Upon review of the matter before me, it is evident that this overriding objective will be best achieved by referring the matter to the Narok High Court, which is the forum most suitable for its adjudication. This is because the original proceedings and disputes arose within that jurisdiction, and the matters previously decided by the subordinate court were handled there.
5. The respondents have submitted that there will be no undue inconvenience in obtaining the relevant files from Narok, that the two causes of action are distinct and that the applicant’s offices are in this Court’s jurisdiction. This still would not align with the doctrine of forum conveniens as articulated in judicial pronouncements such as Ketan Morjaria v Hemlata Rajnikant Karia [2016] KEHC 1733 (KLR). The Court in that case cited from the South African High Court in Multi-Links Telecommunications Ltd v Africa Prepaid Services Nigeria Ltd and Others (35347/13, 30004/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 261; [2013] 4 All SA 346 (GNP); 2014 (3) SA 265 (GP) (6 September 2013), where the learned judge opined:
“… it seems to me that one must determine the forum most suitable for the ends of justice and because pursuit of the litigation in that forum is most likely to secure those ends. The appropriate or natural forum is that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. In that context then, the Court would look to all the connecting factors including all background facts, convenience, experts, the law governing the relevant transaction or action, the place where the parties reside or carry on business, etc…”
6. The High Court in Ketan Morjaria then pronounced itself that:
“The interpretation invoked by the House of Lords thus denotes that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to the effect that the question of whether a particular Court has the jurisdiction to hear a matter in terms of conflicting jurisdictions is one which is to be assessed and determined depending on its own special circumstances. Furthermore, the doctrine calls for the Court to determine the most appropriate forum for hearing and determining a dispute which shall enable the parties therein and the Court to meet the ends of justice”.
7. This principle applies broadly even to this case. Having considered all the arguments, I take the view that transferring the matter to Narok will facilitate the proper determination of all issues, including costs, interest and decrees. This will also prevent unnecessary delays by this Court having to request for any documentation from Narok.
8. Further, any disputes concerning taxation or other related matters arising from the disputed figures can be easier addressed there as it is the Court where the action has the most real and substantial connection to. In any case, being a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, the Narok High Court equally has jurisdiction in insolvency matters.
Disposition
Accordingly, I find that the application for transfer is justified. The application dated 16th May 2025 is therefore allowed. The petition is transferred to the Narok High Court for hearing and final determination. Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
'
1. I have carefully considered the application dated 16th May 2025, together with the replying affidavit filed in opposition thereto and the written submissions of the parties. The application seeks the transfer of the instant petition to Narok High Court for hearing and determination. The primary reason advanced is the applicant’s disagreement with the computation of taxed costs and the calculation of interest on the principal sums.
2. It is noteworthy that the current petition is based on an insolvency debt that includes the aforementioned amounts. The respondents have not contested that all the decrees forming the basis of the petition were heard and finalized at the Narok Chief Magistrate’s Court.
Analysis and Determination
3. Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act confers inherent power upon this Court to make orders necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process. In exercising this power, the Court’s primary guiding principle is the overriding objective, which aims to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
4. Upon review of the matter before me, it is evident that this overriding objective will be best achieved by referring the matter to the Narok High Court, which is the forum most suitable for its adjudication. This is because the original proceedings and disputes arose within that jurisdiction, and the matters previously decided by the subordinate court were handled there.
5. The respondents have submitted that there will be no undue inconvenience in obtaining the relevant files from Narok, that the two causes of action are distinct and that the applicant’s offices are in this Court’s jurisdiction. This still would not align with the doctrine of forum conveniens as articulated in judicial pronouncements such as Ketan Morjaria v Hemlata Rajnikant Karia [2016] KEHC 1733 (KLR). The Court in that case cited from the South African High Court in Multi-Links Telecommunications Ltd v Africa Prepaid Services Nigeria Ltd and Others (35347/13, 30004/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 261; [2013] 4 All SA 346 (GNP); 2014 (3) SA 265 (GP) (6 September 2013), where the learned judge opined:
“… it seems to me that one must determine the forum most suitable for the ends of justice and because pursuit of the litigation in that forum is most likely to secure those ends. The appropriate or natural forum is that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. In that context then, the Court would look to all the connecting factors including all background facts, convenience, experts, the law governing the relevant transaction or action, the place where the parties reside or carry on business, etc…”
6. The High Court in Ketan Morjaria then pronounced itself that:
“The interpretation invoked by the House of Lords thus denotes that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to the effect that the question of whether a particular Court has the jurisdiction to hear a matter in terms of conflicting jurisdictions is one which is to be assessed and determined depending on its own special circumstances. Furthermore, the doctrine calls for the Court to determine the most appropriate forum for hearing and determining a dispute which shall enable the parties therein and the Court to meet the ends of justice”.
7. This principle applies broadly even to this case. Having considered all the arguments, I take the view that transferring the matter to Narok will facilitate the proper determination of all issues, including costs, interest and decrees. This will also prevent unnecessary delays by this Court having to request for any documentation from Narok.
8. Further, any disputes concerning taxation or other related matters arising from the disputed figures can be easier addressed there as it is the Court where the action has the most real and substantial connection to. In any case, being a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, the Narok High Court equally has jurisdiction in insolvency matters.
Disposition
Accordingly, I find that the application for transfer is justified. The application dated 16th May 2025 is therefore allowed. The petition is transferred to the Narok High Court for hearing and final determination. Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
'