Kubai v Teachers Service Commission (Cause E288 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A dismissed teacher lost his unfair termination claim because he filed three years after dismissal, even though he had pursued an internal appeal.
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 Claim, filed on 13th July 2020, is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, given that dismissal took effect on 24th May 2017 and was communicated on 16th June 2017
- 2.Whether pursing an internal appeal under Section 46 of the Teachers Service Commission Act suspends the running of time under Section 90
- 3.Whether the Court has power to extend the limitation period prescribed under Section 90 of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Commencement of the limitation period where an internal appeal exists
Time runs from the date of dismissal/communication of the decision, not from exhaustion of internal mechanisms
The Court held that although it had previously shared the Claimant's view that time starts after exhausting internal mechanisms, the Court of Appeal in Rift Valley Railways held that out-of-court processes do not suspend time. The Claimant should have filed his claim while pursuing his Section 46 appeal; nothing barred concurrent filing. The claim therefore went stale three years from termination.
Court's power over Section 90 limitation
The Court cannot extend time under Section 90; proceeding would amount to unlawfully extending time
Section 90 prescribes a three-year limitation period which the Employment Act itself does not permit to be extended. Ignoring the objection would amount to the Court extending time contrary to Section 90 and the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Court is bound by that decision, so the preliminary objection succeeds and the claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Time under Section 90 of the Employment Act does not stop running merely because parties are engaged in out-of-court or internal dispute resolution processes
- This Court lacks power to extend the limitation period fixed by Section 90 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
- 2.The Claim is declined for want of jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Employment Act
- 3.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims; objection founded on Section 90 of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Reinstatement, arrears of salary and compensation for unfair termination
Claim filed outside the 3-year limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act; Court cannot extend that period
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear own costs)
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.
the Court of Appeal held that time does not stop running, merely because Parties are engaged in out-of-court processes.
The Court does not have the power to extend time prescribed under Section 90, unless the Employment Act itself, provides for such extension.
The Claim is declined for want of jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment records the Court's earlier contrary view on when time begins to run but does not explain or overrule it in detail, creating a shift in position
Case number, parties' full names and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment text supplied
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kubai v Teachers Service Commission (Cause E288 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1525 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1525/eng@2024-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.