Kimaiyo v Geothermal Development Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2387 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Nakuru refused to transfer an employee's case to the High Court equivalent because his own court documents stated a salary within the Magistrate's Court's limit.
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 Applicant's application dated 13th March 2025 for stay of hearing and transfer of MCELRC No. E313 of 2021 (Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Court) to this Court should be granted
- 2.Whether the Trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the Applicant's gross monthly salary exceeded Kshs. 80,000
- 3.Whether the Respondent's preliminary objection and grounds of opposition (including lack of supervisory jurisdiction and nullity of the Claim) are merited
Key legal issues
#Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court based on gross monthly salary
The application was not merited because the Applicant's pleaded gross monthly salary of Kshs. 78,740 was within the Trial Court's jurisdictional limit of Kshs. 80,000, and he was bound by that pleading.
The Applicant pleaded in his Amended Statement of Claim a basic salary of Kshs. 52,000 with housing and transport allowances totalling Kshs. 78,740, within the gazetted limit of Kshs. 80,000. His belated reliance on a May 2020 pay slip with variable items (house allowance in arrears, overtime pay) did not displace his pleadings, as gross salary for jurisdiction comprises basic salary and invariable items only.
Timing and bona fides of the jurisdictional objection
The Court found the delay of four years in raising the jurisdictional issue, only when the Claim was scheduled for hearing, undermined the application.
The Applicant was summarily dismissed on 10th December 2020 and presented his Claim at the Trial Court in 2021. He only sought transfer in March 2025, when the Claim was scheduled for hearing on 25th October 2025. The Court regarded this timing as inconsistent with a genuine jurisdictional error discovered late, indicating the application was tactical.
Respondent's preliminary objection on supervisory jurisdiction and nullity
The Court found it unnecessary to determine the Respondent's grounds, but affirmed its own jurisdiction to transfer employment matters from the Magistracy and that a wrongly-filed Claim can be redirected.
While declining to engage in detail with the grounds of opposition, the Court affirmed that it has jurisdiction to transfer employment matters from the Magistracy and rejected the assertion that a Claim filed in the wrong jurisdiction is a nullity incapable of transfer, implicitly rejecting the Respondent's nullity argument.
Legal principles established
#- Gross salary for purposes of determining pecuniary jurisdiction comprises the monthly basic salary and invariable items, not variable items such as overtime pay or allowances in arrears.
- This Court has jurisdiction to transfer employment matters from the Magistracy, and a Claim filed in the wrong jurisdiction is not incapable of being redirected to the appropriate jurisdiction.
- A party is bound by pleadings made before the Trial Court; the Applicant's pleaded gross monthly salary of Kshs. 78,740 was within the Trial Court's pecuniary jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th March 2025 filed by the Applicant is declined.
- 2.No order on the costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Supervisory and transfer jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment matters filed in the Magistracy; Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024 (delivery of judgment)
Relief refused
#Stay of hearing of the Claim before the Trial Court and transfer of the Claim to this Court
The Applicant was bound by his pleadings that his gross monthly salary was Kshs. 78,740, within the Trial Court's pecuniary jurisdiction, and his 4-year delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, only when the Claim was scheduled for hearing, was unexplained
Costs
No order on the 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.
The application dated 13th March 2025 filed by the Applicant is declined.
No order on the costs.
Gross salary for purposes of determining pecuniary jurisdiction, comprises the monthly basic salary, and invariable items.
this Court has jurisdiction on transfer of employment matters from the Magistracy; and, a Claim filed in the wrong jurisdiction is not incapable of being redirected to the appropriate jurisdiction.
He is bound by his pleadings before the Trial Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present application and the full names of the parties are not given in the judgment; only the Trial Court case (MCELRC No. E313 of 2021) and the parties' roles are identified.
Apparent typographical errors in the judgment ('sufice to afirm').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimaiyo v Geothermal Development Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 13th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2387/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.