Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim filed 20 November 2024)

Mutango v Mediamax Network Ltd (Cause E968 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1431 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 May 2025
RSRadido Stephen
733 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a unfair dismissal claim filed four years late, confirming the three-year filing deadline in section 90 of the Employment Act cannot be extended.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the Respondent on 20 November 2024 seeking relief for wrongful and unprocedural dismissal, having pleaded that her employment was terminated on account of redundancy on or around 21 November 2020. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the claim was time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, that the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and that the suit was an abuse of process. The Claimant opposed the objection in submissions, arguing that her cause of action was tied to the constitutional right to fair labour practices read with Article 24 on limitation of rights, and that the limitation provision had to yield to constitutional supremacy under Article 2. The Court applied settled Court of Appeal authority, including Divecon v Samani and Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya, that a claim founded on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years and that section 90 is in mandatory terms. Since the Cause was filed four years after the cause of action accrued, the Claimant had moved outside the prescribed limitation period, and she cited no authority declaring limitation clauses invalid or inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court further held it lacked power to extend time or admit the Cause out of time. The preliminary objection was upheld, the Statement of Claim was struck out, and costs were awarded to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Claim is time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, having been filed more than 3 years after the cause of action accrued
  2. 2.Whether the constitutional right to fair labour practices and Article 2 constitutional supremacy displace the limitation period in section 90
  3. 3.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Claim and whether it may extend time or grant leave to file out of time

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

The claim, filed on 20 November 2024 in respect of a termination on 21 November 2020, was outside the 3-year limitation period and time-barred; the preliminary objection was upheld and the claim struck out

Reasoning

The Claimant pleaded termination by redundancy on or around 21 November 2020. Section 90 restricts filing to 3 years from accrual. The Cause was lodged four years later. Relying on Court of Appeal authority including Divecon v Samani and Beatrice Kahai Adagala, the Court held the limitation provision mandatory and found no decision declaring limitation clauses unconstitutional before it.

p. 2
02

Whether constitutional rights override the statutory limitation period

Holding

The Claimant's submission that section 90 should yield to constitutional supremacy failed because she cited no authority declaring limitation clauses invalid

Reasoning

The Claimant argued that the cause of action was interlinked with the non-derogable right to fair labour practices read with Article 24, and that section 90 had to yield to Article 2 supremacy. The Court noted she placed no decision before it declaring limitation clauses invalid or inconsistent with the Constitution, so the submission could not displace the mandatory statutory bar.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years under section 90 of the Employment Act, which is in mandatory terms
  • The ELRC lacks power to extend time or admit an employment claim filed out of the statutory limitation period

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11 December 2024 is upheld
  2. 2.The Court declines jurisdiction and strikes out the Statement of Claim filed on 20 November 2024
  3. 3.Costs to the Respondent

The bench

#

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

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (section 90 on limitation invoked); preliminary objection on jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Hearing of the claim for wrongful and unprocedural dismissal

The claim was filed four years after termination, outside the 3-year limitation period in section 90 of the Employment Act, and the Court has no power to extend time

p. 2

Costs

Costs to the Respondent.

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 Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11 December 2024 is upheld with the consequence that the Court declines jurisdiction and strikes out the Statement of Claim filed in Court on 20 November 2024.
p. 2Final orders - striking out for want of jurisdiction
The Court has no option but to decline jurisdiction since the Court is not even possessed of the power to extend time or grant leave to admit the Cause out of time.
p. 2No jurisdiction to extend time under section 90
Section 90 of the Employment Act which we have quoted verbatim herein above, is in mandatory terms. A claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years.
p. 2Mandatory limitation period for employment contracts

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Date discrepancy in the Notice of Preliminary Objection: pleaded as filed 13 December 2024 but the orders refer to it as dated 11 December 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mutango v Mediamax Network Ltd (Cause E968 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1431 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim filed 20 November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1431/eng@2025-05-15

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