Ntoror v Transmara Sugar Co Ltd (Cause E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 718 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employee's Sh2.9 million unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he filed it one month late, missing the strict three-year deadline.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was statute barred under section 89 of the Employment Act
Yes. The cause of action accrued on 8th March 2021; the three-year period lapsed on 7th March 2024; the suit filed on 9th April 2024 was out of time.
The court held that parties are bound by their pleadings and relied on authority that a cause of action in employment accrues on the date of termination. Although the respondent did not raise limitation, the court raised it suo motu because it goes to jurisdiction. Section 89 of the Employment Act is mandatory and couched in the negative, barring claims arising under the Act or a contract of service filed beyond three years. The claimant missed the deadline by a small margin, but 'a miss is as good as a mile.'
Whether the court could raise limitation suo motu
Yes, because limitation implicates jurisdiction which can be raised at any stage, even by the court.
Relying on Bosire Ogero v Royal Media Services Ltd, the court held that the law of limitation protects defendants against stale claims and goes to the jurisdiction of the court; where a matter is statute barred, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain it even if no party raises the issue.
Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair
Not determined, as the suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction before merits were reached.
The court framed the fairness issue but, having found the suit statute barred, it declined to determine it. The court downed its tools, citing Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' on the centrality of jurisdiction.
Entitlement to a certificate of service
The respondent shall issue a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act.
Despite striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction, the court ordered the certificate of service, which is a statutory entitlement of an employee under section 51 of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- In an employment relation, a cause of action generally accrues on the date of termination of employment or dismissal.
- Section 89 of the Employment Act mandates that claims based on the Act or a contract of service must be instituted within three years, and a suit filed out of time is statute barred and the court has no jurisdiction.
- The issue of limitation implicates the court's jurisdiction and may be raised suo motu by the court even if not pleaded by the parties.
- An employer must issue a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.The respondent shall issue a Certificate of Service by dint of section 51 of the Employment Act
- 3.Parties shall bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act, sections 45, 89 and 51; court's jurisdiction under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ntoror v Transmara Sugar Co Ltd (Cause E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 718 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E028 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/718/eng@2025-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.