John v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E060 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 518 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan magistrate's court ruled it cannot transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal; only the High Court holds that power under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act.
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
#Jurisdiction of a subordinate court to transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
The magistrate's court has no jurisdiction to transfer the matter to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal; transfer powers under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act belong to the High Court alone.
The court examined section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers only the High Court, on application of a party or sua sponte, to withdraw and transfer suits pending in or before subordinate courts. Guided by Lekuruito and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction dictum in Samuel Kamau Macharia, the court held that a court may only exercise jurisdiction conferred by law, and the subordinate court has no such transfer power. The defendant should instead approach the appropriate forum for transfer.
Legal principles established
#- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation, and a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that conferred by law
- The power to withdraw and transfer a suit from a subordinate court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act is vested exclusively in the High Court, on application or on its own motion
- Section 17 applies to suits capable of being instituted in two or more courts, while section 18 confers a general power on the High Court to withdraw and transfer cases
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant's oral application for transfer of the case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal was 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 (Cap. 21) read with section 47 of the Sugar Act as invoked by counsel; jurisdiction determined per the Supreme Court's pronouncement on jurisdiction flowing from the Constitution or legislation
Relief refused
#Transfer of the suit to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal under section 47 of the Sugar Act
The subordinate court lacks power to transfer or withdraw suits; that power is reserved to the High Court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs
No costs order was made 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.
The High Court has wide and unfettered discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer a suit from one subordinate court to another and it can do so whether on application by one of the parties or sui moto.
The defendant can approach the appropriate forum for transfer.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case title, case number, or the parties' names; the parties are referred to only as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendant'.
The judgment appears to deal with an oral transfer application but is styled as a numbered judgment; no costs order is made.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E060 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 518 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/518/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.