Murunga v Kenya Power & Lighting Co (Cause E774 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1569 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out an unfair termination claim filed just five days late, confirming the three-year employment claim deadline is strict and non-negotiable.
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 Court lacks jurisdiction because the Claim was filed outside the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 89 of the Employment Act
- 2.When the cause of action accrued for purposes of limitation
- 3.Whether the Court can extend time or grant leave after lapse of limitation
Key legal issues
#Accrual of cause of action for retirement-age termination
Legal injury commenced with the notice of retirement (20 August 2020) and crystallised on the effective retirement date (19 September 2020)
The Respondent issued notice of attainment of retirement age on 20 August 2020, with effective retirement on 19 September 2020. The Court treated the notice date as the start of the legal injury and the retirement date as crystallisation, anchoring the computation of the three-year period under section 89 of the Employment Act.
Effect of filing beyond the statutory limitation period
The Court is divested of jurisdiction where the claim is time-barred; limitation in contract claims cannot be extended
Relying on section 89 of the Employment Act and Court of Appeal authority in Divecon v Samani and Beatrice Kahai Adagala, the Court held that a contract-based employment claim filed more than three years after accrual is time-barred, and no court may entertain it or extend time, since section 90 is mandatory and extension applies only to tort claims under the Limitation of Actions Act.
Legal principles established
#- An employment claim founded on contract must be filed within 3 years of the cause of action accruing, and the limitation period cannot be extended in contract claims
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Preliminary Objection upheld
- 2.Cause struck out
- 3.No order on 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 under the Employment Act, section 89 limitation
Relief refused
#Hearing of the claim for unfair termination
Claim filed outside the three-year limitation period in section 89 of the Employment Act
Costs
No order on costs (each party to bear own costs implied)
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 light of the above, the Court upholds the Notice of Preliminary Objection, and strikes out the Cause with no order on costs.
the limitation period is never extended in matters based on contract. The period can only be extended in claims founded on tort and only when the applicant satisfies the requirements of Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
The Claimant’s legal injury or legal wrong started on 20 August 2020, and accrued or crystallised on 19 September 2020.
Issues in the judgment
#Directions date (19 March 2025) precedes the Respondent's submissions filing date (5 March 2025) as recorded
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murunga v Kenya Power & Lighting Co (Cause E774 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause filed 23 September 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1569/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.