Ryoba v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E129 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 764 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a 19-year-old unfair dismissal claim because waiting too long to sue can defeat even a constitutional rights case.
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 jurisdiction to entertain the Petition given that the claim is alleged to be time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act
- 2.Whether the Petition is an abuse of the court process and ought to be struck out
- 3.Whether there is a limitation period for claims of constitutional rights violations and, if so, whether the delay of 19 years was reasonable
Key legal issues
#Whether limitation statutes bar a constitutional petition arising from a 2004 dismissal
Although there is no limitation period for human rights violations claims, the court retains discretion to refuse relief where the delay is inordinate and unexplained; a 19-year delay was held extremely inordinate.
The court accepted the principle from the Supreme Court in Wamwere v Attorney General that there is no limitation period for human rights claims, but relied on the Court of Appeal in Luka Chebii v NSSF to hold that the court must still assess whether the delay is reasonable. On the facts, the petitioner was dismissed on 9th February 2004 and filed suit on 25th July 2024, a delay of 19 years which the court found extremely inordinate, upholding the preliminary objection.
Effect of limitation on jurisdiction
The respondents' preliminary objection on limitation and abuse of process was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with no order of costs.
The court examined the averments and submissions, noted that the dismissal occurred 19 years earlier, and accepted the respondents' submission that limitation is a jurisdictional issue. Relying on the authorities cited by the respondents and the inordinate delay principle, the court allowed the objection and dismissed the petition, declining to award costs.
Legal principles established
#- While there is no limitation period for claims founded on violation of constitutional rights, any delay in filing such a claim must not be inordinate or unreasonable; an extremely inordinate delay justifies dismissal.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is allowed
- 2.The Petition is dismissed in its entirety
- 3.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (invoked by the Petitioner); Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and Section 12(1) of the ELRC Act
Relief refused
#All reliefs sought in the Petition (declarations of constitutional rights violations and compensation)
The court found the delay of 19 years in filing the claim extremely inordinate and upheld the preliminary objection on limitation
Costs
There will be no order of costs (each party to bear own 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.
As per this authority, there is indeed no limitation period for rights issue. If there is a delay however it must not be inordinate or unreasonable.
In the present case I find the delay of 19 years extremely inordinate. I therefore find the preliminary objection merited and I allow it and dismiss the petition in its entirety accordingly.
There will be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on the date of the alleged 1st Respondent's decision: paragraph 15 refers to a letter dated 30th July 2020, while paragraph 26 refers to a decision made on 30th June 2020.
Typographical error in the date of the cause of action in the court's own analysis ('25th May 2033' should read 25th May 2022).
The Supreme Court authority is rendered inconsistently as 'Wamwere & 5 others v Attorney General' in the Petitioner's submissions and 'Wamuma & 5 Others v AG' in the court's analysis.
The case title, full names of the parties and the petition case number (beyond the filing date) are not stated in the judgment extract provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ryoba v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E129 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 25th July 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/764/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.