Maroa v Edgelock Security Limited (Cause E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1007 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 suit is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, the date of termination being disputed (23rd October 2020 vs 4th March 2021)
- 2.Whether the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction is ousted by Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 given the Claimant's gross salary was below Kshs 80,000/=, and whether the suit should be transferred to the Magistrates' Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act
Not determinable at the preliminary stage because the date of termination (hence when the three-year period began to run) is hotly contested; the issue must be decided after viva voce evidence.
Section 90 imposes a mandatory three-year limitation period on employment claims, running from the act complained of. The Respondent says termination was on 23rd October 2020 (supported by a termination letter); the Claimant says 4th March 2021 and disowns the signature on the letter, relying on NSSF remittances up to February 2021. Since this factual dispute cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence before cross-examination, the limitation question must await full trial.
Whether the ELRC lacks pecuniary jurisdiction by virtue of Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018
The Gazette Notice conferring jurisdiction on magistrates over employment disputes where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs 80,000/= does not divest the ELRC of its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a); the Court was not bereft of jurisdiction, but in the interest of justice, given the Claimant's salary was below Kshs 80,000/=, the suit was transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani.
Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 designated magistrates of the rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above to hear employment disputes where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs 80,000/=. The Respondent argued this ousted the ELRC's jurisdiction. The Court held that the ELRC retains exclusive original jurisdiction over all employment disputes under Article 162(2)(a), so the objection failed; nevertheless, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, the Court transferred the suit to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani.
Legal principles established
#- Despite the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on magistrates by Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution.
- A claim under the Employment Act becomes statute-barred if not filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose; in unfair termination claims the cause of action arises when the employment relationship is severed.
- A contested date of termination cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence on a preliminary objection or striking-out application; it requires viva voce evidence tested by cross-examination.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26th March 2024 is disallowed
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2024 is disallowed
- 3.The suit is transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani for hearing and determination
- 4.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007; Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22nd June 2018
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Statement of Claim for want of jurisdiction (time-bar and pecuniary jurisdiction)
The date of termination is hotly contested and cannot be determined on affidavit evidence; and the ELRC retains exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) notwithstanding the Gazette Notice
Costs
There will be no orders as to 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.
In sum, the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion both dated 26th March 2024, are disallowed.
In the interest of justice and bearing in mind that the Claimant’s last salary was below the sum of Kshs 80,000/=, the suit herein is transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani for hearing and determination.
There will be no orders as to costs.
it will be draconian to summarily determine the matter and strike out the suit based on Afidavit evidence which has been challenged by contrary evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates of termination cited for the Claimant: the Statement of Claim pleads termination on 4th March 2021, but paragraph 26 states the Claimant 'seeks to rely' on a termination of '4th October 2021'
The Notice of Motion is described as seeking to strike out a 'Statement of Claim dated 2nd August 2023' while the opening paragraph records that the Statement of Claim was filed on 17th January 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maroa v Edgelock Security Limited (Cause E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1007 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1007/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.