Mucheke v Teachers Service Commission (Miscellaneous Application E294 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that employees have only three years from dismissal to sue for wrongful dismissal, and no court can extend that deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has discretion to extend time or grant leave to file a suit out of time where the claim is caught by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court has discretion to extend time for filing a claim under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
The Court has no such discretion; limitation under section 90 is absolute and cannot be extended
Section 90 gives an employee 3 years from dismissal to sue. Relying on Divecon v Samani, where the Court of Appeal held that section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act confers no discretion to extend time for contract actions, the court held the same interpretation applies to section 90. Cause of action accrues at dismissal, not at the conclusion of any internal appeal, and no explanation was given for the post-appeal delay.
When did the cause of action accrue for limitation purposes
At the date of dismissal, not the conclusion of the internal appellate process
The applicant was dismissed on 21 May 2021 and had until 20 May 2024 to sue. The internal appeal concluded on 9 March 2022, but that did not postpone accrual of the cause of action. Consistent with Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, a dismissed employee has all the facts at dismissal and may sue then; the internal appellate process does not suspend limitation.
Legal principles established
#- Where a limitation statute prescribes no discretion to extend time, a court cannot entertain an application to extend time for bringing the action; the Divecon v Samani interpretation of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act applies equally to section 90 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 7 October 2024 is dismissed with no order on costs
- 2.The Deputy Registrar to serve copy of this Ruling upon the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (section 90 invoked in respect of limitation)
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time and leave to file and proceed with the suit out of time
The cause of action accrued at dismissal and the Court has no power to extend time under section 90 of the Employment Act
Costs
No order on costs - 'The application dated 7 October 2024 is dismissed with no order on costs.'
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.
This Court has no power to extend time or grant leave to file Cause out of time.
the interpretation given in respect to section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act applies with equal force to actions implicated by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The applicant's cause of action accrued at the time of dismissal and not conclusion of the internal appellate process.
The application dated 7 October 2024 is dismissed with no order on costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Citation for Divecon v Samani appears garbled in the judgment as '(1995)-1998) EA 48'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mucheke v Teachers Service Commission (Miscellaneous Application E294 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 7 October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/143/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.