Prichani v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1119 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a part-time lecturer's multi-million shilling claim against Kibabii University because his contracts never converted to permanent employment and most claims were filed too late.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation of actions under Section 89 of the Employment Act
Only claims falling within the period from 17th July 2023 to 30th November 2024 may be entertained; the rest are statute-barred.
The claimant's claims accrued at the end of each periodic contract. Each contract lapse ripened into a cause of action which ought to have been pursued within the statutory period. Unpaid entitlements, if any, constitute a continuing injury under Section 89, actionable within 12 months of cessation. Filing on 17th July 2024 allowed only claims from 17th July 2023 onwards.
Nature of the claimant's employment
The claimant was a part-time/external contractual employee governed by each specific contract; his engagement never converted to permanent and pensionable terms.
The contracts executed from 2011 were specific as to duration and nature; part-time engagement approximated piecework. He was never a casual employee for purposes of Section 37, and the 2015-2016 fixed-term contract expired with non-renewal, salary and gratuity having been paid. No CBA provision was proved allowing automatic conversion or his UASU membership.
Entitlement to reliefs
The claim fails on the merits; the claimant was not entitled to the claimed emoluments.
His remuneration was fixed by the part-time contracts based on hours taught and units assigned; he admitted part-timers are not entitled to allowances. The claimant did not prove the alleged discriminatory policy or call evidence of peers treated differently, and the CBA extract availed contained no automatic conversion provision.
Legal principles established
#- Employment claims based on continuing injury under Section 89 of the Employment Act must be filed within 12 months of cessation of the injury; where each contract lapse gives rise to a cause of action, only claims within 12 months of filing are entertainable.
- Courts cannot rewrite contracts for parties; the court's role is to interpret contracts and determine the parties' rights therein.
- Section 37 of the Employment Act converts only casual employment to regular employment; an employee engaged on specific periodic contractual terms is not a casual employee.
Court orders
#- 1.This cause is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (claim based on contract of service; not expressly stated in judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Prichani v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1119 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment cause, memorandum of claim dated 17th July 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1119/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.