Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No. E237 of 2026· RULING IN ELRC CAUSE NO. E237 OF 2026

Rasesh Shah v Anil D. Shah t/a Amratlal Hardware Stores

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
24 September 2026
OMOnesmus Makau
1,248 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a 19-year-old claim for unpaid leave and gratuity because it was filed far too late, though the claimant avoided paying costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from May 2002 until termination on 31st December 2006, was in 2008 arrested for his father's murder, sentenced to death in 2009, resentenced to 20 years in 2019 following Muruatetu, and released in December 2021. In March 2026 he sued for annual leave pay (KShs. 163,366) and service gratuity (KShs. 100,020), a total of KShs. 263,386. The respondent filed a preliminary objection contending that the Employment Act, 2007 has no retrospective application, that the claim is time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act, and that no leave for extension of time had been obtained. The court framed a single issue: whether the suit is statute barred. It held the applicable law was the repealed Employment Act, which contained no limitation provision, so section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act governed. Relying on binding Court of Appeal authority in Divecon v Samani and Beatrice Kahai Adagala, the court held that contract claims must be filed within the statutory limitation period, which cannot be extended. The claimant's argument that his death sentence incapacitated him from suing was rejected, the court following Makhoha v Multiple Ice Kenya Limited that ongoing criminal proceedings do not stop time running. Upholding the preliminary objection, the court struck out the suit as filed 19 years out of time and lacking jurisdiction, but declined to award costs against the claimant given his long incarceration without income.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim for terminal dues accrued in 2006, filed in 2026, is statute barred

Holding

Yes - the suit was filed 19 years out of time; limitation under the Limitation of Actions Act cannot be extended for contract claims and the court lacks jurisdiction

Reasoning

The claim accrued on termination in December 2006. The repealed Employment Act had no limitation provision, so section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act applied. Binding Court of Appeal authority (Divecon v Samani; Adagala) holds contract claims must be filed within the limitation period, which cannot be extended. Incapacity from criminal proceedings does not stop time running. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim founded on contract, including employment, must be filed within the statutory limitation period, which cannot be extended
  • Ongoing criminal proceedings do not stop the running of limitation time under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Upheld the preliminary objection
  2. 2.Struck out the suit
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs - no costs awarded against the claimant
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(1)(a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rasesh Shah v Anil D. Shah t/a Amratlal Hardware Stores", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E237 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2546/eng@2026-09-24

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