Leseketeti v Kirisia Engineering Co. Ltd & another (Civil Case E021 of 2021) [2025] KEMC 160 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Maralal court dismissed a Kshs 1.47 million partnership profits claim because partnerships with assets above Kshs 300,000 must be sued over in the High Court, not a Magistrate's Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction over the partnership dispute
The court lacked jurisdiction because the gross assets of the partnership, including current assets (generated profits) in excess of Kshs 5 million, exceeded the Kshs 300,000 threshold set by section 2 of the Partnership Act 2012, vesting jurisdiction in the High Court alone
Both parties admitted the suit was founded on a Partnership Agreement dated 2nd November 2017 with a 50:50 profit-sharing ratio. Relying on Hellen Wangari Wangechi v Carumera Muthoni Gathua, a partnership requires a business carried on in common with a view to profit. The pleadings and testimonies showed generated profits in excess of Kshs 5 million. Section 2 of the Partnership Act 2012 confines Magistrate's Court jurisdiction to partnerships with gross assets not exceeding Kshs 300,000; disputes exceeding that figure lie in the High Court. Applying Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian 'S', once the court formed the opinion it lacked jurisdiction it had to down its tools and dismiss the suit.
Whether the question of jurisdiction could be raised by the court on its own motion
A question of jurisdiction, once raised by a party or by the court on its own motion, must be decided forthwith on the evidence before the court, whether or not raised as a formal preliminary objection
The court noted that ideally the point should have been raised by the parties as a preliminary objection, quoting Mukisa Biscuit Company Ltd v Westend Distributors on the nature of preliminary objections. However, following Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian 'S', the court held that a jurisdictional question raised by a party or by the court suo motu must be disposed of immediately on the material before it, and that a party who fails to question jurisdiction may not be heard to raise it after determination. The court therefore considered and decided the jurisdictional issue on its own initiative.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is everything and without it a court cannot make even one step; a court must down its tools once it holds the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction
- Under section 2 of the Partnership Act 2012, the High Court (not a Magistrate's Court) has jurisdiction over partnership disputes where gross assets of the partnership exceed Kshs 300,000
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- 2.Costs of the suit to the defendants
- 3.Right of appeal is 30 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Partnership Act, 2012, section 2 (definition of 'court')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leseketeti v Kirisia Engineering Co. Ltd & another (Civil Case E021 of 2021) [2025] KEMC 160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 12th May, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/160/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.