Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment provided· [2025] KEELRC 2396 (KLR)

Wanjohi v Laikipia University (Cause E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2396 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 August 2025
JRJames Rika
420 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a claim cannot be struck out as time-barred before both sides file their documents and give evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection seeking to strike out the Claimant's claim as statute-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007, which imposes a 3-year limitation period on employment contract actions computed from the date of termination. The Respondent argued the Claimant's contract ended in December 2020 while the Claim was filed in December 2024, outside the limitation period. The Claimant countered that her duties as a part-time lecturer, including administering and marking examinations, continued after 2020, so time did not begin to run in 2020, and the date it did begin required determination at a full trial. Parties agreed the objection be considered on affidavits and submissions. The Court observed that the Respondent had not filed its Statement of Response, only a Memorandum of Appearance and Notice of Preliminary Objection, and had placed no documents establishing the nature of the contract(s) issued to the Claimant. The Claimant exhibited various letters of appointment with differing terms, though it was unclear when amounts were payable. Notably, the Respondent's objection denied any engagement with the Claimant at all, which sat uneasily with the assertion that a contract ended in 2020. The Court held that parties must be given adequate time to complete pleadings, exchange documents and give evidence before the Court could reach an informed decision on when time began to run. The Court found the Respondent had rushed to raise the objection without placing its pleadings and documents in full on record. The preliminary objection was declined, with no order on costs. Judgment was delivered electronically at Nakuru on 29th August 2025 pursuant to Rule 68(5) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, by James Rika, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claim is statute-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

The preliminary objection was declined; the Court held it could not determine limitation at the preliminary stage where the nature of the engagement and the date time began to run are disputed and require evidence at a full trial.

Reasoning

The Respondent had not filed its Statement of Response or documents establishing the nature of the contract(s) issued to the Claimant. The Claimant exhibited various letters of appointment with different terms, and it was unclear when amounts payable were to be paid. The Claimant asserted her duties as a part-time lecturer continued beyond 2020 through marking examinations, so when time began to run required establishment through a full trial. The Respondent denied any engagement at all, contradicting the assertion that the contract ended in December 2020.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection on limitation premised on the date the employment contract ended should not be determined before pleadings are closed, documents exchanged and evidence heard, where the date the cause of action accrued is disputed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection is declined.
  2. 2.No order on the costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanjohi v Laikipia University (Cause E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2396 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2396/eng@2025-08-29

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