Karuma v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan employees must file employment claims within 3 years of dismissal — internal appeals don't stop the clock, and late claims are dismissed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court lacks jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and Section 3(1) and (2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act because the claim was filed out of time
- 2.Whether the respondent, a company, can rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act
- 3.Whether the claimant's internal appeal suspended or extended the limitation period
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act
Yes. The cause of action arose on summary dismissal on February 4, 2020, and the claim filed on March 23, 2023 exceeded the 3-year limitation period, which is mandatory
The court held the cause of action commenced with the summary dismissal, so time ran from February 4, 2020, expiring on February 3, 2023. The claimant's internal appeal to the Board of Directors did not stop time running. Section 90 is mandatory and cannot be extended in contract-based claims, so the court lacked jurisdiction.
Whether the respondent could rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act
No. The respondent, being a company with the right to sue and be sued and not a local authority, could not invoke Section 3 of that Act
The claimant argued the respondent was not a local authority or government entity. The court agreed that a company with the right to sue and be sued cannot rely on Section 3 of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, though this did not save the claim since it was still time-barred under Section 90.
Whether the internal appeal process suspended limitation under Section 90
No. Dispute resolution mechanisms, including an internal appeal, do not extend the time to file a court claim
The claimant argued time began running only on November 17, 2020 when the appeal outcome was communicated. The court held that whatever dispute resolution mechanisms were used within the 3 years, they were immaterial if the claim was not filed in court within that time, including time taken for an internal appeal after employment ceased.
Legal principles established
#- Internal appeal or dispute resolution mechanisms do not extend the limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act; a claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years of the cause of action
- The limitation period in Section 90 of the Employment Act is mandatory and cannot be extended in contract-based employment claims
- A company with capacity to sue and be sued cannot rely on the Public Authorities Limitations Act
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent's notice of preliminary objection dated May 10, 2023 is allowed
- 2.The claim is dismissed for being filed out of time
- 3.Costs of the claim to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 read together with the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#The claimant's claim for unfair termination and terminal dues
The claim was filed more than 3 years after the cause of action accrued and was therefore time-barred, denying the court jurisdiction
Costs
The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Whatever dispute resolution mechanisms were employed from the date the cause of action arose and within the 3 years contemplated under section 90 of the Act, this is immaterial if a claim is not filed in court within such time.
The claim filed out of time hence denies this court jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The claim is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Under the mandatory provisions of Section 90 of the Act, from February 4, 2020 the claimant had until February 3, 2023 to file suit.
The respondent as a company with right to sue and be sued cannot rely on section 3 of the Public Authorities Act.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, party names or the respondent's identity, only the date of the preliminary objection and the claim filing date
Submissions paragraph refers to Section 3(1) and (3) while the preliminary objection and later reference cite Section 3(1) and (2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karuma v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited (Cause E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). null - not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1920/eng@2023-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.