Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in judgment

Wanyama v Malaria No More UK (Cause E108 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 698 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 March 2025
RSRadido Stephen
650 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court struck out an unfair termination claim because the employee's contract required disputes to be heard in English courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued Malaria No More UK alleging unfair termination of employment and breach of contract. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction because clause 22.4 of the employment contract dated 20 January 2023 provided for English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts. During case management the Court noted the contract itself had not been filed and directed that it be availed; the Claimant filed her documents on 6 February 2025. In submissions, the Respondent relied on the Lillian S jurisdiction line of authorities to urge that where a court finds no jurisdiction it must down its tools. The Claimant countered that her work station was Kenya, that she would be prejudiced pursuing justice outside Kenyan courts, and relied on Alusa v Mobile Consultation Association Ltd t/a Tibu Health, which cautions against a robust application of party autonomy in employment relations given the imbalance of power between employer and employee. The Court held that the parties voluntarily agreed on the choice of English law and English courts as forum; with that clear exercise of party autonomy, the Court cannot rewrite the parties' mutual agreement and must yield to the preliminary objection, downing its pen for want of jurisdiction. The Cause was struck out with costs to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from the employment contract dated 20 January 2023 given the choice of English law and exclusive jurisdiction of English courts in clause 22.4
  2. 2.Whether the parties' autonomy in agreeing on choice of law and forum binds the Court despite the employment context

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction in the face of a contractual choice of foreign law and forum in an employment contract

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction where the parties expressly agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of English courts and English law

Reasoning

Clause 22.4 provided that the agreement is governed by English law with exclusive jurisdiction of English courts. The court held that the parties voluntarily agreed on choice of law and forum; party autonomy means the court cannot rewrite the mutual agreement and must yield to the preliminary objection, declining jurisdiction and striking out the cause.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties have clearly exercised party autonomy in choosing law and forum in an employment contract, the Court cannot rewrite their mutual agreement and must down its tools for want of jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court declines jurisdiction in light of the parties' choice of law and forum
  2. 2.The Cause is struck out with costs to the Respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Constitution and applicable law, disputed via preliminary objection on contractual choice of forum

Relief refused

#

Claimant's claim for unfair termination and breach of contract

Struck out for want of jurisdiction due to contractual choice of English law and exclusive jurisdiction of English courts

p. 2

Costs

Costs to the Respondent

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.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and the parties to this Agreement shall submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
p. 2Clause 22.4 choice of law and forum
With the clear exercise of party autonomy as set out in the employment contract, this Court cannot rewrite the parties' mutual agreement but must yield to the Notice of Preliminary Objection and down its pen for want of jurisdiction.
p. 2Party autonomy and jurisdiction
The Court declines jurisdiction in light of the parties' choice of law and forum. The Cause is struck out with costs to the Respondent.
p. 2Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment records directions on 22 January 2025 and submissions filed 31 January 2025, yet states the Court set a further directions date of 5 February 2025 'consequent to' the 22 January directions, and the Claimant filed documents on 6 February 2025, leaving the exact sequence of directions slightly unclear

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanyama v Malaria No More UK (Cause E108 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/698/eng@2025-03-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.