Adulo v Wassuna (Civil Suit 1440 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 415 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it cannot extend the three-year deadline for filing employment claims, and dismissed the late claimant's applications as an abuse of process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court had jurisdiction to extend time to admit an employment claim filed outside three years
The court lacked jurisdiction; Order 37 rule 6 CPR concerns section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act (tort claims) and is inapplicable to employment disputes, and section 89 of the Employment Act does not permit extension
The application was premised on Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs applications under section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act, a provision concerning negligence and other torts. The cause of action here was employment, governed by section 89 of the Employment Act, which fixes a three-year limitation. The Court of Appeal in Rift Valley Railways held that no court may extend a statutory limitation period unless the statute itself allows. The discretion under section 89 is therefore fettered by the law itself.
Whether judgment should be arrested/stayed pending determination of the application
No; the power to arrest judgment is exercised sparingly and no injustice or abuse was shown after a full inter-partes hearing
The claim had been heard viva voce on 10th July 2023 and directions on final submissions issued. The court's rules are silent on arrest of judgments. Following Musa Misango v Erica Musigire and Re Estate of Bernard Kariuki Thoronja, the power to arrest a decision is used only sparingly to avoid injustice, in cases of inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist a litigant abusing process. The applicant sought only to defeat the limitation defence after a full hearing.
Whether the applicant's excuse of a moratorium/confusion over forum justified the delay
No documentary evidence supported the alleged moratorium; the excuse was rejected
The applicant alleged a judicially noticed moratorium following petitions over whether magistrates' courts could hear employment and land disputes, resolved in 2018. The court found the applicant had adduced no documentary evidence of this alleged confusion, describing the claims as strange. The delay excuse therefore failed independently of the jurisdictional bar.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute limits time for bringing an action, no court has the power to extend that time unless the statute itself allows extension
- The court's discretion to enlarge time under section 89 of the Employment Act is fettered by the three-year limitation the statute itself imposes
- The power to arrest judgment must be exercised sparingly and rarely
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th February 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The application dated 9th October 2023 meets the same fate and is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the applications in the cause
- 4.Parties to appear before the trial judge (Justice Ocharo Kebira) on February 27, 2025 for issuance of a judgment date
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016; Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 25, 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adulo v Wassuna (Civil Suit 1440 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 415 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (originating summons dated 16th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/415/eng@2025-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.