Mulati v County Secretary County Government of Bungoma & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E008 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 564 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma employment court dismissed an employer's attempt to throw out a claim as time-barred, because when the employment actually ended is a disputed fact.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on limitation was properly before the court
It was not properly before the court because it was grounded on disputed facts, namely when the cause of action arose and whether the Claimant is still in employment.
A preliminary objection must rest on a pure point of law with no contest as to facts. Here the parties diverged on when the cause of action arose, whether non-payment of salary since 2019 amounted to constructive dismissal terminating employment, and whether the Claimant remains an employee. Those factual questions can only be resolved after a full hearing, so the limitation objection fails as a preliminary point.
Whether the preliminary objection was merited
Not merited, following the finding that it is based on disputed facts.
Having found that the objection rests on disputed facts, the court held it bereft of merit and dismissed it. The court accepted that non-payment of salary constitutes constructive dismissal but noted the Claimant's pleading that he remains in employment, making the limitation question incapable of summary determination at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised where any fact has to be ascertained
- Employment claims must be filed within three years under section 89 of the Employment Act; claims of continuing injury must be filed within twelve months after cessation of the continuing injury
- The limitation period in contract-based employment claims is never extended; it runs from the date termination is communicated
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of this suit
- 3.The Claimant's counsel is directed to find out the proper party or parties to be sued in cases involving disputes arising from a contract of service between a county government employee and a county government
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 89 of the Employment Act (limitation of employment claims), the suit arising from a contract of service between a county government employee and a county government
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulati v County Secretary County Government of Bungoma & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E008 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 564 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/564/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.