Agogo v County Secretary County Assembly of Taita Taveta & 2 others (Petition E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1234 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Mombasa dismissed a worker's claim of over Ksh. 423,000 because it was filed more than three years late and in the wrong form.
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 petition offends the provisions of section 90 [now section 89] of the Employment Act
- 2.Is this a proper petition?
- 3.Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the petition
- 4.Who should pay the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was a proper mode of bringing the employment claim
Not a proper petition; the claims were employment dues claimable by Memorandum of Claim
The petitioner claimed Ksh. 423,726 and alleged violation of Article 41. The court, following Athmani Hassan and Munga, held that Article 41 rights are elaborated in the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act, and the ELRC Rules permit constitutional allegations to be raised in a Memorandum of Claim. Invoking the petition route was unnecessary since no breach of law beyond statutory protection was alleged.
Whether the claim was time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Yes; cause of action arose 30 April 2020 and the claim was filed 5 November 2024, well beyond three years
Section 90 requires employment claims within three years of the cause of action. The petitioner should have filed by 30 April 2023. Following Thuita Mwangi, filing a petition rather than a Memorandum of Claim cannot cure the time bar. The court thus lost jurisdiction and discretion to extend time.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the petition
No; the time-barred and improperly constituted claim removed jurisdiction
Because the claim was filed outside the statutory limitation period and in improper form, the court held jurisdiction was ousted and it could not entertain the petition, invoking the principle that a court without jurisdiction must down its tools.
Legal principles established
#- Employment rights under Article 41 elaborated in statute should be pursued by Memorandum of Claim, not constitutional petition, absent breach of law beyond statutory protection
- A claim filed out of time under section 90 of the Employment Act deprives the court of jurisdiction and discretion to extend time
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the ELRC (Procedure) Rules; objections under section 90 of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Entire petition, including claim for Ksh. 423,726 and alleged violation of Article 41 rights
Petition was improper and filed out of time, depriving the court of jurisdiction
Costs
Costs to the respondents
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.
A party seeking to invoke these rights does not need to go the constitutional petition route. By filing a Memorandum of Claim, such a party can be heard on their issue.
Under section 90 of the Employment Act, a claim seeking to assert employment and labour relations claims must be addressed within 3 years from the date the cause of action arose.
A claim filed out of time denies the court jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The court is denied the discretion to extend time to hear a claim out of time.
Without jurisdiction, the court must put down its tools. The petition is fatally defective and hence dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment text contains a broken/duplicated passage in paragraph 10 regarding the time bar
Typos in original ('ofiends' for 'offends', 'ofice' for 'office')
Petitioner and respondents are not named anywhere in the judgment text provided; parties cannot be identified by name
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agogo v County Secretary County Assembly of Taita Taveta & 2 others (Petition E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1234 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 20 May 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1234/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.