Murefu v Gogo

Applicant’s case 3. The application is supported by the adavit of the Applicant sworn on even date as the application. 4. The Applicant contends that the suit was initially led in the Chief Magistrates Court at Nakuru as CMELRC No. E553 of 2025, Michael Anjeche Murefu v. Hon. Dr. Lilian Gogo. Upon further consideration and legal advice by his counsel on record, the Applicant realized that the entire cause of action arose within Homa Bay County, where he was employed by the Respondent and where all the alleged acts, including harassment, hostile working conditions, assault, withholding of salary and allowances, and constructive dismissal, occurred. 5. The Applicant further avers that the Respondent is the Member of Parliament for Rangwe Constituency in Homa Bay County, that her ocial duties are carried out there, and that all material witnesses, employment records, police records, medical records, and other documentary evidence are situated within Homa Bay County. 6. The Applicant avers that he mistakenly believed his place of residence conferred jurisdiction when ling in Nakuru, but now urges that in the interest of justice the matter be certied urgent to avoid unnecessary expense, delay, and prejudice. 7. The Applicant avers that transferring the suit to the Employment and Labour Relations Court with territorial jurisdiction over Homa Bay will facilitate expeditious disposal of the matter, serve fairness, and cause no prejudice to the Respondent. Respondent’s replying adavit 8. The Respondent opposed the application vide a replying adavit dated 29th June 2026 sworn by the Respondent herself. 9. The Respondent avers that the application was misconceived, incompetent, and an abuse of the court process, noting that a substantive Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction had already been raised before the Nakuru court, fully argued, and was pending ruling. 10. The Respondent contended that the Applicant’s move amounted to forum shopping and a deliberate attempt to circumvent due process by pre-empting the subordinate court’s determination. 11. The Respondent emphasized that the Applicant had voluntarily invoked the Nakuru court’s jurisdiction, actively participated in proceedings, and only sought transfer after the jurisdictional challenge had been heard, making the application an afterthought. 12. The Respondent further avers that the Applicant failed to make full and candid disclosure of material facts, particularly the pending ruling, and that granting the orders would risk conicting decisions, undermine judicial economy, and prejudice her. 13. The Respondent maintained that the court’s discretion to stay or transfer proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, which the Applicant had not demonstrated. 14. The Respondent therefore urged the court to dismiss the application with costs, terming it legally untenable, premature, and calculated to defeat the ordinary course of justice. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2530/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 4

Analysis and determination 15. The court has carefully considered the application led, together with the supporting adavit and annexures, as well as the replying adavit; the issue for determination is whether the application to transfer the suit from Nakuru to Homabay is merited. 16. Rule 6(1) and 6(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 provide as follows: “Proceedings before the Court shall be instituted at the Court’s registry or sub-registry with respect to the county where— a. the claimant, petitioner or applicant, at the time of commencement of the proceedings, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or (b) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The Court may, on its own motion or upon application, for recorded reasons, transfer any proceeding to the most convenient court station for hearing and determination.” 17. In the instant case, the Applicant instituted CMERLC No. E553 of 2025, Michael Anjeche Murefu v. Hon. Lilian Gogo before the subordinate court at Nakuru, but now seeks transfer of the matter on the basis that his employment with the Respondent and all the alleged acts including harassment, hostile working conditions, assault, withholding of salary and allowances, and constructive dismissal —occurred in Homa Bay County. The Respondent, however, contends that a substantive Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction has already been raised, fully argued, and is determined. In the Respondent’s view, the Applicant’s attempt to transfer the suit amounts to forum shopping and a deliberate eort to circumvent due process by pre‑empting the subordinate court’s determination on jurisdiction. 18. The court is of the considered view that the suit cannot be transferred merely on the basis that the Respondent resides in NakuruHomabay. In accordance with Rule 6 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, territorial jurisdiction is not conferred by residence alone. Indeed, the memorandum of claim annexed to the application clearly indicates that the Applicant is a resident of Nakuru. Furthermore, with the evolution of virtual proceedings during the COVID‑19 pandemic, witnesses are able to adduce evidence from any location, including remotely, thereby minimizing concerns of geographical inconvenience. Consequently, the Respondent’s residence in Homabay does not, of itself, justify transfer of the suit. Moreover, as the matter is already determined before the subordinate court in Nakuru, being MCELRC553/2025 delivered on 16th July 2026 where the Preliminary Objection was upheld and the suit was struck out. 19. In that case, this application is overtaken by events and so is dismissed. 20. Each party to bear its own costs. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. JUDGE Order In view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2530/eng@2026-09-25 3

page 3 of 4

of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and aordable resolution of civil disputes. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2530/eng@2026-09-25 4

page 4 of 4