Khalid S. Hantoosh v Postal Corporation of Kenya
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that short limitation periods in parastatal laws don't apply to employment disputes—state corporations face the same time rules as any other employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether section 24 of the PCK Act applies to employment disputes
It does not; section 24 governs proceedings against the Corporation for acts done in execution of its statutory functions, not employer/employee disputes, whose terms are left to the Board under section 13.
The court examined the preamble, section 5 (functions) and section 13 of the Act, noting that terms and conditions of service are to be settled by the Board and are not found in the Act or its Schedule. Section 24 targets proceedings for acts done in pursuance of the Act's statutory functions such as postal services, and makes no reference to employment contracts. The court aligned itself with the reasoning in Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani that a parastatal, in employment matters, is like any other employer.
Applicable limitation law for a 2004 cause of action
The repealed Employment Act cap 226 contained no limitation period; the Employment Act, 2007 could not apply retrospectively; hence the Limitation of Actions Act (6 years in contract) governed.
Since section 24 did not apply, the court identified the law in force at the time of accrual. Cap 226 had no limitation provision; section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 cannot operate retrospectively to a 2004 dismissal. The general statute, the Limitation of Actions Act of 1967, providing six years for contract and tort actions, therefore applied, and the claim filed within that period was not time barred.
Timeliness of the appellant's claim
The claim, though pleaded as filed in August 2006, was treated as commenced in August 2005 and within time, so it was not time barred.
The court found the employment terminated on October 19, 2004 and proceedings commenced in August (recording 2005), by which time the six-year limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act had not run. Consequently, the preliminary objection on limitation lacked merit and should have been dismissed. The second issue on the start date of the 12-month period was left unanswered as superfluous.
Legal principles established
#- Limitation clauses in a parastatal's founding statute that are tied to the exercise of its statutory powers do not apply to actions arising from contracts of employment with its employees; the general law of limitation applies instead.
- For purposes of contracts of employment, a parastatal is just like any other employer and no legal distinction can be drawn between contracts of service entered into by private companies and those entered into by parastatals.
- The Employment Act, 2007 does not operate retrospectively; for causes of action arising before its commencement, the Limitation of Actions Act (six years for contract) applies.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Linnet Ndolo J) dated February 28, 2019 upholding the preliminary objection is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the preliminary objection
- 2.The respondent shall meet the costs of the appeal; the costs of the trial court will abide the outcome of the claim
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (rule 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules cited) against an interlocutory ruling of the ELRC
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wafula v Postal Corporation of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E053 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1478 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1478 (KLR)23 May 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khalid S. Hantoosh v Postal Corporation of Kenya", Case Analysis (2021). Nairobi Civil Appeal (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/191/eng@2021-11-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.