https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1777

Mutuku v Pink and Pearl Waxing and Nail Bar Ltd (Cause E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1777 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1777 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Cause E001 of 2026 M Mbarũ, J June 29, 2026 Between Josephine Wanza Mutuku Claimant and Pink and Pearl Waxing and Nail Bar Limited Respondent Ruling 1.The respondent, Pink and Pearl Waxing and Nail Bar Limited, filed an application dated 23 March 2026 under the provisions of rule 6(1) and (2), 44, 45, and 47 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, article 48, 50(1), and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, seeking orders:i.The court be pleased to order that ELRC Cause No. E001 of 2026 be transferred from the ELRC Mombasa to the ELRC at Nairobi for hearing and determination.ii.The cost of the application is to be provided. 2.The application is supported by Tabitha Withera Karanja, the respondent's director, who avers that the court is seized of jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings to a more convenient court under Rule 6(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules (the Court Rules). Under the court Rules, proceedings should be instituted in the court registry for the county where the claimant actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arose. The claimant has pleaded that she resides and works for gain in Nairobi, and the respondent is based in Nairobi. All the acts complained of in the claim arose in Nairobi. There is no disclosed territorial or juridical nexus between the cause and Mombasa to justify the claim being filed in Mombasa rather than Nairobi. 3.Under the Court Rules, for an interlocutory or final hearing, the claim should be heard in Nairobi to ensure access to justice for both parties, who are Nairobi residents. There will be no prejudice to the claimant, who has already confirmed in the pleadings that she is a resident of Nairobi. 4.In reply, the claimant filed the Replying Affidavit and avers that the respondent alleges that both parties are domiciled in Nairobi, but this is only meant to delay the course of justice and the scheduled hearing. The respondent has already admitted jurisdiction and should not be allowed a turnaround to frustrate the hearing and determination of the matter. 5.The claimant avers that the address captured in her pleading is that of her advocate for purposes of service. In the Verifying Affidavit, the claimant lists their address as Mombasa, not Nairobi. Under Rule 6 (1) of the Court Rules, pleadings can be filed at any registry where the employee resides or undertakes business. 6.The claim avers that upon termination of employment on 21 December 2025, she relocated to Mombasa, within the court's jurisdiction, and hence filed her claim at the nearest registry. It is not true that she is a resident in Nairobi, as alleged. The Court Rules permit a claim such as herein. 7.The matter came up for pre-trial directions on 4 February 2026 and for mention on 23 February 2026, at which the hearing date was confirmed, only for the respondent to file the instant application to frustrate the hearing. Despite compliance with the pre-trial directions, the respondent filed this application as an afterthought, thereby denying the claimant access to justice. The prejudice to be suffered if the matter is heard in Mombasa is not indicated. The instant application is an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed with costs. Both parties filed written submissions. 8.The respondent, as the applicant, submitted that the workplace where the alleged cause of action arose was in Nairobi. The claimant has pleaded that her address is in Nairobi. There is nothing to connect her to Mombasa or to file the suit outside of Nairobi, in Anyara v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited, Cause No. E068 of 2024, the court held that a suit filed in Kisumu, rather than Nairobi, where the cause of action arose, was improper. The claimant herein cannot rely on a Mombasa postal address to claim residence in Mombasa. The claimant gives no nexus to Mombasa. 9.The claimant asserts that the respondent will suffer no prejudice if the matter is heard in Mombasa. In Wekesa v Kenya Airways PLC, Cause No. E059 of 2024, the court held that Rule 6 of the Court Rules allows parties to file the claim where the employee is a resident. However, the employee should not use the same for forum shopping as held in Universities Academic Staff Union v Kirinyaga University Council [2022] KEELC, where the suit was filed in Nairobi instead of Nyeri as the cause of action arose in Kirinyaga. In this case, the claim should be heard in Nairobi. 10.The claimant submitted that the claim was filed and that her address was listed as Nairobi, but she is a resident of Mombasa. Under Rule 6 of the Court Rules, a party is allowed to file suit at the nearest registry. In Cheruiyot v Doshi & Co. (Electricals) Limited t/a Metsccables Limited Misc. Application No. E021 of 2025, the court held that the Civil Procedure Act and the Rules favour filing suits where the respondent resides, while the rules of the court favour filing suits where the employee resides. In the event of a conflict, the rules of the court prevail. 11.In this case, the claimant has since relocated to Mombasa upon termination of employment and hence is before the proper court. Determination 12.Indeed, under Rule 6 of the Court Rules, an employee who seeks to file suit upon termination of employment may do so at the nearest court registry. Unlike commercial disputes regulated under the Civil Procedure Act and the rules thereto, which require a suit to be filed where the cause of action arose, the Court Rules fundamentally allow an employee who has lost employment and is forced to relocate to file suit where she or he is based. 13.This is the gist of Rule 6(1) of the Court Rules. The employee is accommodated to the extent that they are permitted to file suit in the jurisdiction where they currently reside. 14.In this case, the respondent has challenged the filing of suit in Mombasa on the basis that the cause of action arose in Nairobi and the claimant’s address is in Nairobi. There is no connection to Mombasa; hence, the matter should be heard in Nairobi. 15.The claimant asserts that, since losing her employment with the respondent on 21 December 2025, she has moved to Mombasa but has secured the services of her advocates based in Nairobi. 16.In the Memorandum of Claim, it is alleged that the respondent employed the claimant in Nairobi. Her address of service is through her advocates based in Nairobi. The Verifying Affidavit in support of the claim give the postal address as Mombasa. The particulars thereof are not indicated. The details of the new location are not stated. The connection to Mombasa is very remote. 17.The contract of employment dated 1 May 2025 gives the claimant’s postal address as Nairobi. 18.All factors well considered, the application of Rule 6 of the Court Rules addressed, the cause of action having arisen in Nairobi, the parties will best be served at the Nairobi ELRC registry. 19.Also, the hearings are largely virtual. The parties have already gone through pre-trial and confirm each is ready for the hearing, albeit for this application, which is filed on a good foundation. 20.Accordingly, the application dated 23 March 2026 is with merit. The file shall be moved to the Nairobi ELRC Claims Division for hearing and determination. Costs shall abide by the outcome of the claim. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.M. MBARŨJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: Samuel Maruga……………………………………………… and……………………………………………