AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)
John Kimunyi Mutunga v Mind Quest Limited & another [2019] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The applicant, the 1st respondent in the suit (the employer), applied by notice of motion dated 18th July 2018 for the transfer of an employment dispute filed at the ELRC Kericho to the ELRC Nairobi, contending that the claimant was engaged in Nairobi as Head of Finance and Administration from May 2016, that both corporate parties were based in Nairobi, and that under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act the suit should have been filed where the cause of action arose. The applicant alleged forum shopping and asserted the court's power to transfer suits in the interest of justice. The claimant/respondent opposed, arguing that the ELRC has jurisdiction throughout the country, that the Civil Procedure Rules are merely persuasive as the court has its own procedure rules, and that the transfer was a delay tactic exploiting the Nairobi backlog. During proceedings on 9th October 2018 the parties agreed to determination on pleadings and documents, and notably the respondent to the suit indicated it was not opposed to the transfer. Nevertheless, the court, per D.K.Njagi Marete J, held that no tangible reason had been offered for the transfer, that the applicant's rationale was scanty and wanting in law, that the Kericho court had jurisdiction and was likely better equipped to determine the matter with expedition, and that the suggestion of mischief and intended delay behind the transfer request was not farfetched. The application was dismissed with costs to the claimant. Judgment delivered on 1st February 2019.
Key legal issues
#01
Territorial jurisdiction and transfer of suit
Holding
The application for transfer was dismissed; the Kericho court held it had jurisdiction and was better placed to hear the matter expeditiously
Reasoning
The court found that the applicant offered no tangible reason for the transfer to Nairobi. It noted the Kericho court was likely better equipped to hear and determine the matter with greater expedition than the Nairobi court, and that the claim of mischief and intended delay by the respondent in seeking the transfer was not farfetched. The respondent was not opposed to the application, but the court still found the transfer unjustified.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction throughout the country in relation to employment matters, and a transfer to Nairobi is not warranted absent tangible justification
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18th July, 2018 seeking transfer of the suit to ELRC Nairobi is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2011; Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act invoked by the applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kimunyi Mutunga v Mind Quest Limited & another [2019] KEELRC 2254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2254/eng@2019-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.