Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal Appeal from ELRC Cause No. 2 of 2020

Juma & 5 others v Mada Holdings t/a Baobab Sea Lodge Kilifi Limited (Civil Appeal E034 of 2022) [2025] KECA 817 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 May 2025
SKS. Gatembu KairuKLDr. K. I. LaibutaGNG. W. Ngenye-Macharia
4,233 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that employment claims filed more than three years late are time-barred, and courts can raise this on their own.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Manani, J.), which had dismissed the claims of six former security guards against Mada Holdings as time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act. The appellants alleged verbal redundancy in June 2016 and claimed unpaid dues; their claim was filed on 24th June 2019. The trial Judge, raising the limitation issue suo moto, held that section 90 is cast in stone, that limitation is a jurisdictional matter which a court may raise on its own motion, and that all claims except the 4th appellant's were filed outside the three-year period. The Court of Appeal identified two issues: whether the trial court erred in finding want of jurisdiction by reason of limitation, and whether the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought. The Court affirmed that the lapse of the three-year period under section 90 is a substantive jurisdictional bar, not a mere procedural one, and that a court may raise it suo moto after hearing the parties. It rejected the appellants' attempt to substitute the termination dates given in oral testimony and witness statements for the pleaded dates, holding that parties are bound by their pleadings and that evidence at variance with pleadings must be ignored; the proper course was amendment. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent, payable by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th appellants, and no orders were made regarding the 4th appellant, whose claim had succeeded below.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the trial court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellants' claims on account of the claims being time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
  2. 2.Whether the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act is a jurisdictional bar that a court may raise suo moto

Holding

Yes. Section 90 creates a statutory time limit whose lapse extinguishes the ELRC's jurisdiction; a court may raise and determine the issue on its own motion, though parties should be heard on it.

Reasoning

The Court held that the three-year limit in section 90 is not a mere procedural bar but a substantive restriction on the court's adjudicatory power. Jurisdiction is foundational and must be settled before the merits; it can be raised suo moto or by any party at any stage. Where the court raises it on its own motion, parties must be given an opportunity to be heard. The trial Judge therefore correctly downed his tools.

p. 6
02

Whether oral testimony and witness statements giving different termination dates could override the dates pleaded

Holding

No. Parties are bound by their pleadings; evidence departing from them must be ignored, and the correct route was amendment of the pleadings.

Reasoning

The Court found discrepancies between the pleaded dates of redundancy and those given in witness statements and oral testimony. Relying on the Mutinda Mule and Adetoun Oladeji decisions, it held that a party cannot introduce evidence at variance with its pleadings and a court cannot base its decision on such extraneous material. Since the appellants did not amend their claims, the trial court could only rely on the pleaded dates.

p. 7
03

Whether the claims (other than the 4th appellant's) were filed out of time

Holding

Yes. Computing limitation from the pleaded dates of redundancy, the claims filed on 24th June 2019 were between 4 and 10 days late and thus statute barred.

Reasoning

For the 1st, 2nd and 5th appellants the pleaded redundancy date was 15th June 2016, expiring 14th June 2019, making the claim ten days late; for the 3rd and 6th appellants the claims were 4 and 8 days late respectively. The Court affirmed that limitation in contract-based employment claims is mandatory and cannot be extended absent a statutory provision.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Once the three-year limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act lapses, the ELRC lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter; the lapse is a substantive restriction on the court's power, not merely a procedural bar.
  • A jurisdictional issue may be raised by the court suo moto or by a party at any stage, provided the parties are given an opportunity to be heard on it.
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings; oral evidence at variance with pleaded dates of termination must be disregarded, and the remedy is amendment of pleadings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent, to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th appellants
  3. 3.No orders made as regards the 4th appellant whose claim was determined in his favour in the court below

The bench

#

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

SK
majority
KL
majority
GN
majority
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
ELRC Cause No. 2 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (the judgment does not cite the specific statutory provision)

Relief refused

#

Setting aside of the trial court's judgment and reinstatement of the appellants' claims

The claims of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th appellants were statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act and the trial court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction

p. 8

Costs

The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th appellants; no orders as to costs were made regarding the 4th appellant

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.

Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.
p. 6 primacy of jurisdiction (quoting Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S')
It is now a settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings and any evidence that tends to depart from the pleadings must be ignored.
p. 7binding effect of pleadings
the limitation period is never extended in matters based on contract.
p. 8no extension of limitation in contractual claims (quoting Divecon Limited v Samani)
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th appellants. We make no orders as regards the 4th appellant whose claim was determined in his favour.
p. 8disposition and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment repeatedly states the claims were filed on '24th June 2016' when the pleaded filing date is 24th June 2019, an apparent typographical error affecting the limitation analysis as written.

minor

The judgment states that for the 1st, 2nd and 5th appellants the cause of action arose on 20th June 2016 while elsewhere stating the decision to declare them redundant was made on 15th June 2016.

minor

The judgment states that with the exception of the 4th appellant the claims 'were accordingly dismissed' by the trial court, while the opening paragraph states the trial court 'dismissed the appellants' claims' without the exception.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (6)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Juma & 5 others v Mada Holdings t/a Baobab Sea Lodge Kilifi Limited (Civil Appeal E034 of 2022) [2025] KECA 817 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Court of Appeal Appeal from ELRC Cause No. 2 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/817/eng@2025-05-09

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