Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOthernull - not stated in the judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)

Karuma v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 July 2023
1,012 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employees must file employment claims within 3 years of dismissal — internal appeals don't stop the clock, and late claims are dismissed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa, delivered by M. Mbarũ J on July 13, 2023, determines a notice of preliminary objection dated May 10, 2023 in which the respondent contended that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's employment claim, filed on March 23, 2023, was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and Section 3 of the Public Authorities Limitations Act. The claimant had been summarily dismissed on February 4, 2020 and argued that time only began running on November 17, 2020, when an internal appeal to the Board of Directors was decided, and that the respondent, not being a local authority, could not invoke the Public Authorities Limitations Act. The court accepted that a company with the right to sue and be sued cannot rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act. However, it held that the cause of action arose with the summary dismissal, giving the claimant until February 3, 2023 to file suit. Internal dispute resolution mechanisms, including an appeal, do not extend the limitation period. Relying on Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya and Divecon Limited v Samani, the court held Section 90 to be mandatory and incapable of extension in contract-based claims. The preliminary objection was accordingly allowed and the claim dismissed with costs to the respondent for want of jurisdiction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

Yes. The cause of action arose on summary dismissal on February 4, 2020, and the claim filed on March 23, 2023 exceeded the 3-year limitation period, which is mandatory

Reasoning

The court held the cause of action commenced with the summary dismissal, so time ran from February 4, 2020, expiring on February 3, 2023. The claimant's internal appeal to the Board of Directors did not stop time running. Section 90 is mandatory and cannot be extended in contract-based claims, so the court lacked jurisdiction.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent could rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act

Holding

No. The respondent, being a company with the right to sue and be sued and not a local authority, could not invoke Section 3 of that Act

Reasoning

The claimant argued the respondent was not a local authority or government entity. The court agreed that a company with the right to sue and be sued cannot rely on Section 3 of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, though this did not save the claim since it was still time-barred under Section 90.

p. 2
03

Whether the internal appeal process suspended limitation under Section 90

Holding

No. Dispute resolution mechanisms, including an internal appeal, do not extend the time to file a court claim

Reasoning

The claimant argued time began running only on November 17, 2020 when the appeal outcome was communicated. The court held that whatever dispute resolution mechanisms were used within the 3 years, they were immaterial if the claim was not filed in court within that time, including time taken for an internal appeal after employment ceased.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Internal appeal or dispute resolution mechanisms do not extend the limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act; a claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years of the cause of action
  • The limitation period in Section 90 of the Employment Act is mandatory and cannot be extended in contract-based employment claims
  • A company with capacity to sue and be sued cannot rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent's notice of preliminary objection dated May 10, 2023 is allowed
  2. 2.The claim is dismissed for being filed out of time
  3. 3.Costs of the claim to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 read together with the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karuma v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). null - not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1920/eng@2023-07-13

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