Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No. 10 of 2020 (Consolidated with Case No. 11 of 2020)· [2022] KEELRC 986 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited (Kimugu Factory) [2022] KEELRC 986 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 January 2022
2,838 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out unfair dismissal suits filed over three years late, showing employment claims have a strict three-year deadline with no extensions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union brought two consolidated suits (Cause No. 10 of 2020 consolidated with Cause No. 11 of 2020) on behalf of two grievants, Enock Korir and Joseph Selim, summarily dismissed by Unilever Tea Kenya Limited on 8.12.2016 for negligence and breach of LOTO safety procedures after a fellow employee was injured. The union sought reinstatement, back pay, leave, gratuity, house allowance, twelve months' salary, notice pay and damages for unfair dismissal. The respondent maintained the dismissal was for valid reason and followed fair procedure, and further submitted the suits were time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, having been filed on 18.2.2020, over three years after dismissal. The court framed three issues: limitation, unfairness, and reliefs. It held that section 90 requires employment suits to be filed within three years of the act complained of; since the suits were filed 4 years and 3 months after the dismissal, they were time barred. The court held limitation is a substantive jurisdictional issue, not a procedural technicality, and that it lacked jurisdiction to enlarge the statutory limitation period. It noted the respondent should have raised the jurisdictional objection at the earliest opportunity, but struck out both consolidated suits. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The merits of the dismissal were not determined.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

Yes; the dismissal occurred on 8.12.2016 and the suit was filed on 18.2.2020, 4 years and 3 months later, exceeding the three-year limitation period.

Reasoning

Section 90 of the Employment Act requires civil actions arising from employment or contract of service to be commenced within three years. The court found the cause of action arose on 8.12.2016 upon dismissal and the suit filed on 18.2.2020 was time barred. The court held limitation is substantive, touching jurisdiction, and it cannot enlarge the period, so the consolidated suits were struck out.

p. 4
02

Whether the dismissal of the grievants was unfair and unlawful

Holding

Not determined; the suits were struck out for being time barred before this issue was reached.

Reasoning

Although the court framed the fairness of dismissal as an issue and recorded extensive evidence on the LOTO safety procedures and disciplinary process, it disposed of the suits on limitation grounds alone. The fairness question and the merits of the reliefs were therefore left undecided.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employment suit must be commenced within three years of the act complained of under section 90 of the Employment Act, and limitation is a jurisdictional, not merely procedural, bar
  • A court lacks jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period for suits founded on employment contracts
  • Objections to jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest opportunity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Struck out the two consolidated suits for being time barred
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; suit founded on contract of service and trade dispute

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited (Kimugu Factory) [2022] KEELRC 986 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 10 of 2020 (Consolidated with Case No. 11 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/986/eng@2022-01-27

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