[2020] KEELRC 417 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 417 (KLR)

The Court found that the cause of action arose in Kilifi, which falls within the geographical jurisdiction of the Mombasa station of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The Respondent's primary argument for transfer was the cost and inconvenience of bringing witnesses to Mombasa, but the Court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 417 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Dr. Judy Njeri Kairo; Respondent: John Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (Jhpiego) Kenya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 11 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Petition / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit
Outcome
Application for transfer disallowed with costs to the Petitioner.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Court, Unfair Termination, Costs of Litigation
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Transfer of Suit Jurisdiction of Court Unfair Termination Costs of Litigation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Judy Njeri Kairo

Petitioner

John Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (Jhpiego) Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent has established sufficient grounds for transfer of the Petition from the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa to Nairobi.
  2. 2 Whether costs and convenience alone justify transfer of a suit between court stations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the cause of action arose in Kilifi, which falls within the geographical jurisdiction of the Mombasa station of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The Respondent's primary argument for transfer was the cost and inconvenience of bringing witnesses to Mombasa, but the Court held that litigation costs are not sufficient grounds for transfer, as provision for costs exists to address such concerns. The Court emphasized that a party seeking transfer bears the burden of demonstrating special circumstances, which the Respondent failed to do. Therefore, the application for transfer was disallowed, and costs were awarded to the Petitioner.

Court Disposition

Application for transfer disallowed with costs to the Petitioner.

Orders

  • The Respondent's application dated 3rd March 2020 for transfer of the suit to Nairobi is disallowed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Petitioner.