Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment

Kenya Union of Road Contractors and Civil Engineering Workers v China City Construction Group Co Ltd (Cause E075 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 490 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 March 2024
830 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employment claims must be filed within three years—negotiating or conciliating out of court does not pause that deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Union of Road Contractors & Civil Engineering Workers sued China City Construction Group Co Ltd on 2 October 2023 alleging unfair termination of employment of eight named Grievants dismissed on diverse dates between 4 June 2020 and 15 August 2020. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the suit was statute-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, which requires such claims to be filed within three years, and that the claim was incompetent and an abuse of process. The Union asserted that it had reported a trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary for Labour and that conciliation had taken place, but produced no evidence or records of the report or its outcome. The Court framed two issues: whether time stops running during alternative dispute resolution, and whether the Court may entertain a claim filed outside the section 90 limitation period. Relying on the binding Court of Appeal decision in Rift Valley Railways v Musonye, the Court held that time does not stop running during out-of-court negotiations or conciliation. Applying Divecon v Samani, it held that limitation is a substantive right barring the cause of action itself, not merely the remedy, and no court has power to extend such time. The suit having been filed more than three years and two months after the causes accrued, the Court upheld the Preliminary Objection, declined jurisdiction, struck out the cause, and made no order on costs in view of the social partnership between the parties.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether time stops running for purposes of limitation if parties are engaged in alternative dispute resolution processes
  2. 2.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action instituted outside the period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether conciliation suspends the limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

No - time continues to run during alternative dispute resolution processes, including conciliation, and parties must bear section 90 in mind throughout

Reasoning

The Court relied on the Court of Appeal's binding decision in Rift Valley Railways v Musonye, which held that although section 15 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act encourages alternative dispute resolution, it must be court-based and conducted within the law. Engaging in out-of-court negotiations does not arrest the limitation clock, and claimants remain bound to file within three years of termination.

p. 2
02

Whether the Court has jurisdiction over a claim filed outside the limitation period, and whether time can be extended

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction; limitation bars the cause of action itself and no discretion exists to extend time under section 90 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

Applying Divecon v Samani, the Court held that limitation provisions confer substantive rights on defendants, not procedural rules. The cause of action - not just the remedy - is extinguished. The Grievants were dismissed between June and August 2020 but the suit was filed on 2 October 2023, more than three years and two months later. No evidence of a report to the Cabinet Secretary or conciliation outcome was placed before the Court.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Time does not stop running for limitation purposes merely because parties are engaged in out-of-court alternative dispute resolution or conciliation
  • A limitation provision is a substantive right; it is the cause of action that is barred, not merely the remedy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
  2. 2.The Court declines jurisdiction
  3. 3.The Cause is struck out without any order on costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, section 90 raised by the Preliminary Objection; no specific constitutional provision invoked

Relief refused

#

The Union's claim of unfair termination on behalf of 8 Grievants

The cause was statute-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, and limitation is a substantive bar that no court may extend

p. 2

Costs

No order on costs, considering the social partnership between the parties

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.

Time does not stop running merely because parties are engaged in an out of court negotiations.
p. 2Limitation and conciliation
A limitation provision or statute vests or gives to a party/defendant a right, and it is not just a procedural right but a substantive right. It is the cause of action which is barred and not the remedy which is barred.
p. 2Nature of limitation statutes
In light of the above, the Court upholds the Preliminary Objection and declines jurisdiction and strikes out the Cause without any order on costs considering the social partnership between the parties.
p. 3Final orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Road Contractors and Civil Engineering Workers v China City Construction Group Co Ltd (Cause E075 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/490/eng@2024-03-04

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