John Lenzi v Smep Deposit Taking Microfinance Ltd [2017] KEELRC 2006 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employer could not force an Eldoret case to Nairobi because employees must be able to seek justice where they worked.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Cause should be transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi
- 2.Whether the Claimant was forum shopping
- 3.Which considerations govern an objection to the geographical jurisdiction of the ELRC
Key legal issues
#Geographical/territorial jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
The ELRC and its 2016 Procedure Rules impose no express geographical limitation on the Court's jurisdiction, but transfer decisions should be guided by access to justice.
The Court noted neither its establishing statute nor the 2016 Procedure Rules limit geographical jurisdiction, unlike sections 11 to 15 of the Civil Procedure Act. It held that where an objection to geographical jurisdiction is raised, cost implications, subject matter, residence of parties and place of accrual of action are material, but access to justice is the paramount constitutional consideration.
Whether transfer to Nairobi should be granted on the facts
The application was dismissed because the contract was substantially performed in Eldoret and proportionality and access to justice favoured the Claimant.
The employer, as the generally more capable and powerful party, could bear the inconvenience of litigating in Eldoret. It was not disputed that the contract alleged to have been breached was substantially performed in Eldoret, where the Claimant is based, so justice required the Cause to remain there.
Legal principles established
#- Although the ELRC's geographical jurisdiction is not expressly limited, territorial considerations must have at their core the constitutional imperative of access to justice, which is the paramount consideration.
- Relevant factors in transfer applications include cost implications, subject matter, residential considerations of the parties and the place of accrual of action.
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 31 October 2017 seeking transfer of the suit to Nairobi be dismissed with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Establishing statute of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Transfer of the suit to the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi
Access to justice tilted in favour of hearing the Cause in Eldoret where the Claimant substantially performed the contract and is currently based
Costs
No order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Access to justice should be the paramount consideration.
The Court therefore declines the invitation by the Respondent and orders that the motion dated 31 October 2017 be dismissed with no order as to costs.
the cost implications, subject matter, residential considerations of the parties and the place of accrual of action would be material factors when an objection is raised against the geographical jurisdiction
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the Cause is not stated in the judgment excerpt.
The name of the Claimant and Respondent are not disclosed; parties are referred to only by role.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Lenzi v Smep Deposit Taking Microfinance Ltd [2017] KEELRC 2006 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/2006/eng@2017-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.