Robert v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E018 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kehancha magistrate court ruled it cannot transfer a case to the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal — only the High Court can do that in Kenya.
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 a case to the Sugar Arbitration Disputes Tribunal
It does not; the power to withdraw and transfer cases lies with the High Court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the High Court to withdraw and transfer suits from subordinate courts on application of any party or on its own motion. The court relied on Julius Lekuruito and the Supreme Court's jurisdictional pronouncement in Samuel Kamau Macharia that a court cannot arrogate jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution or written law confers. Since no provision empowers the subordinate court to transfer matters, the application fails.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction to transfer suits between courts under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act vests in the High Court alone, not subordinate courts
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant's oral application to transfer 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 section 47 of the Sugar Act
The subordinate court lacks jurisdiction to transfer matters; the power to transfer under sections 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act is a preserve of the High Court
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.
It is clear from the above provision that 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 subordinate court does not have such powers.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment is dated '14 day of August, 2026', which appears to be a year later than expected relative to the 2024 case number; likely a typographical error in the delivery date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robert v Sukari Industries Ltd (Civil Case E018 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). KEHANCHA SPMC CC NO. E018 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/519/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.