Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Karuru & 5 others v Egerton University (Cause E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1627 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2025
JRJames Rika
804 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 in Nakuru refused to strike out lecturers' pay discrimination claim as time-barred, because ongoing employment and constitutional violations escape the three-year limit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent filed an application dated 5th December 2024 seeking to strike out the Claimants' Claim as time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, supported by an affidavit of its Legal Officer, Janet Bii. The Respondent argued that the employment contracts covered 11th July 2014 to April 2020, the cause of action arose in April 2020, and the Claim filed on 27th July 2023 exceeded the three-year limitation period, expiring in April 2023. The Claimants, part-time Lecturers engaged at Kshs. 2,000 per hour at the Respondent's Nairobi Campus, opposed the application. They asserted their contracts were terminable at will but never terminated, that they had not resigned, received termination letters or handed over offices, and that the employment relationship subsists. They admitted pleading contract expiry in April 2020 was an error and applied on 10th January 2025 to amend their pleadings. They further invoked Article 41 of the Constitution, ILO Convention 158, ICESCR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Charter and the Public Sector Remuneration and Benefits Policy, claiming pay discrimination and unpaid salaries. The Court declined to strike out the Claim. It found the cause of action could not definitively be said to have arisen or expired in April 2020, since the relationship was arguably continuing. Relying on The German School Society v Ohany and David Wanjau Muhoro v Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd, the Court held pay discrimination claims are continuing injuries not adequately redressed by limitation law, and that constitutional violations are not precluded by Section 90. The application was declined with costs in the cause.

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, the cause of action allegedly having arisen in April 2020 and the Claim filed on 27th July 2023
  2. 2.Whether the Respondent's application dated 5th December 2024 to strike out the Claim should be allowed
  3. 3.Whether the Claimants' plea of continuing employment and constitutional violations takes the Claim outside Section 90

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

The Claim was not struck out as time-barred; the employment relationship was arguably continuing and the cause of action could not definitively be fixed at April 2020

Reasoning

The Claimants pleaded term contracts that were never terminated, that they had not resigned, received termination letters or handed over offices. The Respondent did not show the relationship ended in April 2020. As part-time lecturers they may have taken a break without ending the relationship. The Claim also invoked the Constitution and international instruments beyond the Employment Act.

p. 2
02

Pay discrimination as a continuing injury

Holding

Pay discrimination claims are continuing injuries not adequately redressed by limitation law

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal in The German School Society v Ohany and the E&LRC in David Wanjau Muhoro v Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd, the Court held that continuing wrongs and historical pay disparity cannot be adequately redressed by limitation, so relief is available despite delay.

p. 3
03

Amendment of pleadings

Holding

The Claimants' admitted error in pleading contract dates, which they sought to amend, did not justify striking out the Claim

Reasoning

The Claimants filed an application dated 10th January 2025 seeking to amend their pleadings and witness statement, explaining that pleading expiry in April 2020 was an error. The Court considered their unamended pleading nonetheless asserted continuing employment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even with long delay in seeking remedy
  • Constitutional violations, including pay discrimination, are not precluded by Section 90 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by the Respondent, dated 5th December 2024 is declined
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

The bench

#

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

JR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (Employment Act; Article 41 of the Constitution invoked by Claimants)

Relief refused

#

Respondent's prayer that the Claim be struck out with costs to the Respondent

The Court found the cause of action could not definitively be said to have arisen in April 2020, and the Claimants pleaded continuing employment and constitutional violations not precluded by Section 90

p. 3

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 Court does not therefore think that their cause of action can definitively be said the have arisen in April 2020, or expired in April 2023.
p. 2limitation - accrual of cause of action
Pay discrimination claims are in the nature of continuing injuries.
p. 3continuing wrong doctrine
The Court does not have justification in striking out the Claim, under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
p. 3strike-out refused
It is Ordered: a. The application filed by the Respondent, dated 5th December 2024 is declined. b. Costs in the cause.
p. 3final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The names of the Claimants and the Respondent are not stated in the judgment

minor

Date of swearing of the Claimants' joint affidavit is unclear on the face of the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karuru & 5 others v Egerton University (Cause E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1627 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1627/eng@2025-05-30

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