Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1007 (KLR)

Maroa v Edgelock Security Limited (Cause E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1007 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 March 2025
SRSTELLA RUTTO
2,017 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as a security guard from 1st January 2020 at a monthly salary of Kshs 12,000/=, sued for Kshs 456,960/= comprising notice pay, house allowance, severance pay, leave allowance, overtime pay and compensatory damages for what he alleges was wrongful termination on 4th March 2021 without observance of Section 41 of the Employment Act. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2024 seeking to strike out the suit, contending that the claim was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act because termination occurred on 23rd October 2020, and that under Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 the Court lacked jurisdiction since the Claimant's gross salary was below Kshs 80,000/=. The Respondent relied on Attorney General vs Andrew Maina Githinji & Another and Beatrice Kahai Adagala vs Postal Corporation of Kenya; only the Respondent filed submissions. The Court, per Stella Rutto, Judge, held that the date of termination is hotly contested - the Claimant disowns the signature on the termination letter and relies on NSSF remittances to February 2021 - and such a dispute cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence without cross-examination; the limitation question must therefore be determined at trial after viva voce evidence. On pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court held that despite Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018, the ELRC has exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and was not bereft of jurisdiction. The Preliminary Objection and Notice of Motion were both disallowed, but in the interest of justice, since the Claimant's last salary was below Kshs 80,000/=, the suit was transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani for hearing and determination. There were no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

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

Holding

Not determinable at the preliminary stage because the date of termination (hence when the three-year period began to run) is hotly contested; the issue must be decided after viva voce evidence.

Reasoning

Section 90 imposes a mandatory three-year limitation period on employment claims, running from the act complained of. The Respondent says termination was on 23rd October 2020 (supported by a termination letter); the Claimant says 4th March 2021 and disowns the signature on the letter, relying on NSSF remittances up to February 2021. Since this factual dispute cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence before cross-examination, the limitation question must await full trial.

p. 4
02

Whether the ELRC lacks pecuniary jurisdiction by virtue of Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018

Holding

The Gazette Notice conferring jurisdiction on magistrates over employment disputes where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs 80,000/= does not divest the ELRC of its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a); the Court was not bereft of jurisdiction, but in the interest of justice, given the Claimant's salary was below Kshs 80,000/=, the suit was transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani.

Reasoning

Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 designated magistrates of the rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above to hear employment disputes where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs 80,000/=. The Respondent argued this ousted the ELRC's jurisdiction. The Court held that the ELRC retains exclusive original jurisdiction over all employment disputes under Article 162(2)(a), so the objection failed; nevertheless, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, the Court transferred the suit to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Despite the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on magistrates by Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution.
  • A claim under the Employment Act becomes statute-barred if not filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose; in unfair termination claims the cause of action arises when the employment relationship is severed.
  • A contested date of termination cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence on a preliminary objection or striking-out application; it requires viva voce evidence tested by cross-examination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26th March 2024 is disallowed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2024 is disallowed
  3. 3.The suit is transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani for hearing and determination
  4. 4.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007; Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22nd June 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maroa v Edgelock Security Limited (Cause E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1007 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1007/eng@2025-03-28

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