Rioba v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E054 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 516 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan magistrate's court cannot transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal — only the High Court has that power, so the defendant's application failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to transfer this case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
Key legal issues
#Whether the subordinate court has jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
The court lacks jurisdiction to transfer the matter; that power is a preserve of the High Court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers only the High Court, on application of a party or of its own motion, to withdraw and transfer suits pending before subordinate courts. Section 17 deals with cases that could be instituted in two or more courts, while section 18 confers the general transfer power on the High Court. The Supreme Court in Samuel Kamau Macharia confirmed that a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution or written law confers. The defendant's invocation of section 47 of the Sugar Act did not vest the subordinate court with transfer jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- The power to withdraw and transfer suits under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act vests in the High Court alone, not in subordinate courts
- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be arrogated beyond what is conferred by law
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant's oral application for transfer of the case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act; Sugar Act section 47 (invoked by defendant)
Relief refused
#Transfer of the case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal under Sugar Act section 47
The subordinate court lacks jurisdiction to transfer matters; transfer is a preserve of the High Court under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that this court lacks jurisdiction to transfer this matter from this court to the tribunal and dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. This is a preserve of the High Court.
A Court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.
Under Section 17 and 18 of the Act, upon an application by a party, or on its own motion, the High Court may transfer the suit to another subordinate court with territorial jurisdiction, when justice of the case demands such action.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated '14 day of August, 2026', which appears to be a date error for a 2024-filed matter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rioba v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E054 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). KEHANCHA SPMC CC NO. E054 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/516/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.