Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 20th February 2024 (in E&LR Cause No. E19 of 2023)· [2024] KEELRC 2531 (KLR)

Kimatu v East Meat Supplies Limited (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2531 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 October 2024
MOMaureen Onyango
1,890 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a worker's case filed in the wrong town can be moved to the right county rather than thrown out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret (Maureen Onyango, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2024 by Benson Nzioka Kimatu seeking transfer of his unfair termination suit, Eldoret CMELRC No. E19 of 2023, against East Meat Supplies Limited to the Chief Magistrate's Court in Kajiado County. The suit had been filed at Eldoret, where the Respondent successfully raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction; the trial magistrate directed the claimant to seek transfer to Kajiado, where the cause of action arose and where the Respondent resides and carries on business in Kitengela. The Respondent opposed, contending that a court cannot transfer a suit filed without jurisdiction because such a suit is a nullity, relying on Equity Bank v Mutie and related authorities. The court framed one issue: whether good reasons justified the transfer. Applying section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, and sections 1A and 1B on the overriding objective, the court held that the parties did not dispute Kajiado's territorial competence. It noted the trial court had not struck out the suit but had directed the applicant to seek transfer, and those orders stood unchallenged. Following Francis Kibugi Wanjohi v Kenya Railways Corporation, it held that forcing fresh filings would defeat the jurisprudence that cases be determined on the merits. The application was allowed with the suit transferred to the Kajiado Chief Magistrates' Court; the Applicant, having necessitated the application, was ordered to bear its costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELRC could transfer a suit filed in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction to a court with jurisdiction

Holding

The court held it could give effect to the trial court's direction, since the Eldoret court had not struck out the suit but had directed the applicant to seek transfer, and those orders had not been set aside

Reasoning

Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the High Court and courts of equal status to transfer suits from subordinate courts. The Respondent argued a suit filed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be transferred. The court noted the Eldoret court had not struck out the suit but directed the applicant to seek transfer to a court with territorial jurisdiction; those orders stood unchallenged. Applying the overriding objective in sections 1A and 1B, and since the Respondent resided and carried on business in Kitengela, Kajiado County, transfer was in the interest of justice.

p. 5
02

Whether the Applicant demonstrated good reasons for transfer to Kajiado County

Holding

Yes - the parties did not dispute that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of Kajiado County courts, as the Respondent resides and conducts business in Kitengela

Reasoning

The court found no dispute that Kajiado County was the proper territorial venue since the Respondent resides and carries on business in Kitengela. The cause of action arose in Kajiado County. Relying on Francis Kibugi Wanjohi v Kenya Railways Corporation, refusing transfer would force fresh pleadings, fresh court fees, fresh service costs, and possible limitation barriers, contrary to the jurisprudence that cases ought to be heard and determined on the merits.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to transfer a suit under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretionary and the party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing sufficient reasons
  • It is in the interest of justice to transfer a suit to the county where the defendant resides and carries on business, in furtherance of the overriding objective

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 20th February 2024 allowed
  2. 2.Eldoret CMELRC No. E019 of 2023 transferred to the Kajiado Chief Magistrates' court for hearing and disposal
  3. 3.Applicant to meet the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 15
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B(1)
  • Employment ActSection 51

Cases cited (5)

  • Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Ltd v Panda Flowers Ltd
    (2012) eKLR
  • Equity Bank Limited v Bruce Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour & Travel
    (2016) eKLR
  • Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi v Simon Mbiriri Wanjiku & Another
    (2012) eKLR
  • Albert Chaurembo Mumba & 7 others v Maurice Munyao & 148 Others
    (2019) eKLR
  • Francis Kibugi Wanjohi v Kenya Railways Corporation
    [2021] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret
CM ELRC No. E19 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimatu v East Meat Supplies Limited (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2024 (in E&LR Cause No. E19 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2531/eng@2024-10-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.