George Ng’ang’a Njihia v East African Botanicals EPZ (Advanced Bio-Extract) Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment claim filed nine years after dismissal was struck out because the law gives you only three years to sue.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Accrual of the cause of action and limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
The contractual cause of action accrued on 29 September 2010 when the Claimant suffered the legal wrong; the claim filed about 9 years later was time-barred, and the pendency of criminal proceedings on the same facts did not affect accrual.
Section 90 requires employment claims to be instituted within 3 years of the accrual of the cause of action. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, the court held that criminal proceedings on the same facts neither bar civil proceedings nor defer accrual. The Claimant had all the facts at dismissal and could have sued then. Filing after about 9 years was outside the prescribed period, and the preliminary objection therefore succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- Institution of criminal proceedings is not a bar to, and does not postpone accrual of, civil proceedings based on similar facts; a cause of action arising from dismissal accrues when the employee suffers the legal wrong, not upon acquittal in a criminal trial
Court orders
#- 1.The Memorandum of Claim is struck out
- 2.No order on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; limitation challenged under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Ng’ang’a Njihia v East African Botanicals EPZ (Advanced Bio-Extract) Ltd [2020] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1609/eng@2020-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.