Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers v Maseno University (Cause E062 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2933 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a union's bid to enforce a 2019 settlement because the claim was filed years too late under the three-year limit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the application for adoption of the settlement agreement
The application was defective: a cause (No. E063 of 2025) was filed instead of a Miscellaneous Application as mandated by Rule 69(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Rule 69(1) permits filing of conciliation, negotiation or mediation agreements for adoption and enforcement, but Rule 69(2) is couched in mandatory tone requiring such application to be by way of Miscellaneous Application through notice of motion supported by affidavit. The applicant instead filed a cause, and none of the Civil Procedure Act provisions relied upon provided for adoption under Rule 69(1). The Notice of Motion therefore did not conform with the law.
Limitation of action under Section 89 (formerly Section 90) of the Employment Act
The claim, filed on 14th July 2025 arising from termination on 28th November 2014, was statute barred; the court lacked jurisdiction
Both parties agreed termination occurred on 28th November 2014. The three-year limitation period expired in July 2017, before negotiations commenced in 2018 and before the agreement of 8th April 2019. Section 89 of the Employment Act is mandatory and denies the court jurisdiction over actions filed outside the limitation period; the plea implicates jurisdiction and may be raised at any time, even suo motu. Conciliation does not stop time from running.
Whether engagement in conciliation or mediation can revive or preserve an otherwise time-barred claim
No. ADR after expiry of limitation does not enable adoption of a resultant agreement at the applicant's pleasure
The court reasoned that accepting the applicant's contention would mean that as long as parties engage in conciliation or mediation even after expiry of the limitation period, the resultant agreement could be adopted by the court at the pleasure of the applicant. Agreements under Rule 69(1) ought to be adopted within a reasonable time, and the applicant took more than 5 years and 3 months without explanation.
Legal principles established
#- Limitation under Section 89 of the Employment Act is mandatory and ousts the court's jurisdiction over claims filed outside three years; it may be raised at any point and even suo motu
- Time does not stop running on commencement of reconciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
- Applications to adopt agreements under Rule 69(2) must be by way of Miscellaneous Application supported by affidavit
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 10th July, 2025 is struck out with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; application expressed under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Rule 69, Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers v Maseno University (Cause E062 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. E063 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2933/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.