Koech v Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E065 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2429 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an unfair dismissal claim was not automatically time-barred because the clock starts when an employee receives the termination decision, not the letter's date.
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 is time-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 2.When the cause of action in a termination of employment arises, i.e. the Effective Date of Termination (EDT)
Key legal issues
#Whether Section 89 of the Employment Act prescribes limitation for employment disputes
The Court doubted that Section 89 prescribes limitation, noting Section 90 prescribes a 3-year limitation period
The Court observed uncertainty as to whether Section 89 governs limitation of time for filing employment disputes, and stated that, unless revised, the 3-year limitation from accrual of the cause of action is prescribed by Section 90. This pointed to Section 90 as the operative limitation provision.
When the cause of action arises in termination of employment
The cause of action arises on the EDT - when the employee receives the termination decision - which requires evidential determination at trial
The Court held that the EDT, not the date the dismissal letter is drawn, is when the cause accrues. Since the record did not disclose when the Claimant received the dismissal letter or the appeal outcome, and the certificate of service suggested 18th December 2020, alternative EDTs had to be eliminated through evidence at full trial. The strike-out application was therefore premature.
Legal principles established
#- The cause of action in termination of employment arises on the Effective Date of Termination, when the employee receives the termination decision, not necessarily the date the termination letter is drawn
Court orders
#- 1.The issue raised preliminarily by the Respondent, on time-bar, is to be canvassed and determined upon the full trial.
- 2.Costs in the cause.
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 disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Relief refused
#Strike-out of the Claim on the ground of time-bar
Application premature; EDT cannot be conclusively determined without trial evidence
Costs
Costs in the cause
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 date the cause of action arises, in termination of employment, is the date termination decision, is received by the Employee. It is characterized as the Efiective Date of Termination [EDT] in employment law.
The Application filed by the Respondent is premature, and orders sought draconian.
The issue raised preliminarily by the Respondent, on time-bar, is to be canvassed and determined upon the full trial.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case number, parties' names, or neutral citation
Respondent invokes Section 89 of the Employment Act for limitation while the Court notes limitation is prescribed by Section 90
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E065 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2429 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2429/eng@2024-10-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.