Jumba v Afal Manufacturing Ltd - Ke (Cause E1122 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 1680 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

Jumba v Afal Manufacturing Ltd - Ke (Cause E1122 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 1680 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1680 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E1122 of 2022 CN Baari, J June 19, 2026 Between Humphrey Mugoya Jumba Claimant and Afal Manufacturing Ltd - Ke Respondent Ruling 1.For determination is the Respondent/Applicant’s Motion application dated 9th February, 2026, brought pursuant to Section 1A, 1B, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 51 Rule 1 of the CPR as read with Sections 20 & 29 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court Act, and Article 159 of the Constitution. The Applicant seeks orders THAT: -i.This Claim filed by the Claimant against the Respondent being Nairobi ELRCC. No. E1122 of 2025 Humprey Mugoya Jumba Vs Afal Manufacturing Limited be transferred to the Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Mombasa for hearing and determination.ii.Costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant. 2.The application is supported by grounds on the face of the motion and the affidavit of Beatrice Ooko sworn on 9th February, 2026. The Respondent states that it raised the issue that the matter should be transferred to Mombasa for hearing and determination on the basis that both parties and their advocates are based in Mombasa, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Claim, verifying affidavit, and witness statement, all of which confirm that the Claimant resides and worked in Mombasa County, while the Respondent’s advocate is also stationed there. 3.The Respondent further states the Claimant, through counsel, opposed the transfer and insisted that the case be heard in Nairobi, thereby necessitating the filing of the present application seeking transfer of the suit to Mombasa. 4.The Respondent contends that the filing of the suit in Nairobi and the refusal to consent to its transfer to Mombasa amount to forum shopping and an abuse of the court process. It is further averred that the Claimant will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought for the transfer of the matter to Mombasa are granted. 5.The Claimant opposed the motion vide a Replying affidavit sworn by him on 2nd March, 2026, wherein he argues that the application is bad in law, fatally defective, ill-motivated, and intended solely to vex both him and the Court. 6.The Claimant asserts that the Respondent’s allegation of forum shopping unfairly portrays him as a person of questionable character who manipulates the justice system for personal gain, which he considers to be a grave and malicious accusation. 7.The Claimant further avers that the Respondent has consistently sought to tarnish his reputation, including contacting his new employer and warning her about a purported “criminal record” in an attempt to have him dismissed from employment. 8.The Claimant contends that the application serves no legitimate purpose other than intimidating the Court and influencing it to render a decision favourable to the Respondent when the suit is ultimately heard and determined. 9.The Claimant maintains that the application is intended to intimidate the Court and lay the groundwork for discrediting it should the outcome favour the Claimant. He asserts confidence in the Court’s independence and impartiality, emphasizing that case allocation is done through the Court Tracking System (CTS), which is beyond his control, thereby negating allegations of forum shopping. 10.The Claimant further argues that with several judges stationed at Milimani, it would be impossible for him to influence which judge handles the matter. He contends that, if anything, the Respondent may have a greater interest in transferring the suit to Mombasa where there are fewer judges. Finally, the Claimant avers that the application is founded on non-existent or inapplicable legal provisions. 11.The Claimant further asserts that the Respondent’s headquarters are located in Nairobi, as evidenced by the Special Board Resolution annexed to the Supporting Affidavit, which indicates that the Respondent operates from Mirage Towers, Chiromo Road, Nairobi, with a Nairobi postal address and telephone line. 12.The Claimant avers that both the Respondent and its counsel are fully aware that a party may be sued where it resides, ordinarily carries on business, where a contract was executed, or where the cause of action arose wholly or in part. 13.The Claimant therefore argues that the institution of the suit in Nairobi is proper and lawful, adding that a Claimant’s place of residence is not the determining factor in conferring jurisdiction upon a court. 14.The Claimant maintains that Nairobi is the proper forum since he was interviewed, employed, supervised, cleared, and managed from the Respondent’s Nairobi headquarters, despite being stationed in Mombasa. He argues that the Respondent’s own Human Resource Manager and sole witness is based in Nairobi, and that the location of counsel is irrelevant in determining jurisdiction. 15.The Claimant further accuses the Respondent of contradiction by disputing the Court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously filing a counterclaim before the same Court and seeking substantive reliefs. He contends that the transfer is merely intended to delay the proceedings and prolong the withholding of his terminal dues, since transferring the file to Mombasa would cause significant delays. 16.He adds that modern court processes, including e-filing and virtual hearings, eliminate any inconvenience in prosecuting the matter in Nairobi, and urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs. 17.Parties urged the Motion by way of written submissions, which have been duly considered. Determination 18.The sole issue for determination is whether this Court should transfer this suit to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa for hearing and determination. 19.The principles governing the transfer of suits are now settled. In David Kabungu v Zikarenga & 4 Others HCCS No. 36 of 1995, it was held that the applicant must demonstrate a strong case for transfer and that the transfer should advance the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties. 20.Similarly, in Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Ltd v Panda Flowers Ltd [2012] KEHC 1937 (KLR), the Court held that the power to transfer a suit is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the convenience of the parties, costs, the interest of justice, and the possibility of undue hardship. 21.The Respondent’s principal argument is that the Claimant resides and worked in Mombasa and that both parties’ advocates are stationed there. The Court, however, notes that the Respondent itself admits that its headquarters are situated in Nairobi. 22.The Claimant has further demonstrated, without rebuttal, that he was interviewed and that he executed his contract in Nairobi, that his employment relationship was supervised and managed from Nairobi, and that his resignation and clearance processes were handled at the Respondent’s Nairobi office. 23.Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a suit may be instituted where the Defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action wholly or partly arises. The Respondent carries on business in Nairobi, and part of the employment relationship giving rise to this dispute also arose in Nairobi. 24.It then follows that the filing of the suit herein in Nairobi cannot be said to be irregular or an abuse of the court process. 25.Further, the Respondent has already filed a counterclaim before this Court seeking substantive reliefs, and as correctly submitted by the Claimant, it is contradictory for the Respondent to simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of this Court through a counterclaim, while contending that the same Court is an improper forum. 26.The Court also takes judicial notice of the current practice of virtual hearings, e-filing, and digitized court processes, which substantially reduce geographical inconvenience to litigants and witnesses. 27.In the premise, the Respondent has failed to show what prejudice it stands to suffer if the matter proceeds in Nairobi. On the contrary, transferring the suit at this stage may occasion delay and additional expense. In Kagenyi v Musiramo & Another (1968) EA 43, the Court held that transfer of a suit should not be granted where it would occasion injustice or unnecessary delay. 28.Accordingly, the Court finds and holds that the Respondent/Applicant has failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant transfer of this suit from Nairobi to Mombasa. 29.The Notice of Motion dated 9th February, 2026, is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause. 30.Orders accordingly. SIGNED, DELIVERED, AND DATED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.C. N. BAARIJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Anaya present for the ClaimantMrs. Nyange h/b for Mr. Nyange for the RespondentMs. Esther S – C/A