Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Application E046 of 2026· [2026] KEELRC 2530 (KLR)

Murefu v Gogo

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
25 September 2026
AMAN Mwaure
1,301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to transfer an employment case to Homa Bay, ruling that where a party lives alone does not decide where a case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Michael Anjeche Murefu, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru by Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2026 seeking a stay of proceedings in Nakuru Magistrate's Court CMERLC No. E553 of 2025 (his employment suit against Hon Dr Lilian Gogo, MP for Rangwe) and its transfer to the ELRC at Homa Bay. He argued that his employment, the alleged harassment, hostile working conditions, assault, withholding of salary and constructive dismissal all occurred in Homa Bay County, where the Respondent performs her official duties and where the witnesses and records are located; he said he had mistakenly filed in Nakuru based on his residence. The Respondent opposed, contending the application was misconceived, amounted to forum shopping, and was an attempt to pre-empt a preliminary objection on jurisdiction already fully argued before the Nakuru court and pending ruling, and that the applicant had failed to disclose this. The court framed a single issue: whether the transfer application was merited. Applying Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, it held that territorial jurisdiction is not conferred by residence alone; the applicant himself resided in Nakuru, and virtual proceedings minimise witness-convenience concerns. Decisively, the subordinate court had on 16th July 2026 upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit, so the application was overtaken by events and dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant's application for stay and transfer of the subordinate court suit to Homa Bay was merited

Holding

Not merited; the suit could not be transferred on the basis of residence alone and the application was overtaken by events because the Nakuru court had already upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit.

Reasoning

Rule 6 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 permits institution where a party resides or works for gain or where the cause of action arises. Residence alone does not confer territorial jurisdiction. The applicant himself resides in Nakuru, and virtual hearings minimise witness inconvenience. Critically, the subordinate court delivered its ruling on 16th July 2026 striking out the suit, rendering the transfer application moot.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Territorial jurisdiction of the ELRC is not conferred by a party's residence alone; proceedings may be instituted where a party resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises
  • Geographical inconvenience of witnesses is minimised by virtual proceedings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed as overtaken by events
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 11, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act; section 29 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 6 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murefu v Gogo", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application E046 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2530/eng@2026-09-25

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