Wandeta & another v National Police Commission & 2 others; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Petition E133 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1758 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed pension claims can proceed as constitutional petitions despite years of delay, provided petitioners explain their delay at the full hearing.
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 is statutorily time barred under Section 89/90 of the Employment Act and Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act
- 2.Whether limitation goes to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the constitutional petition
- 3.Whether the Interested Party's preliminary objection should be upheld
Key legal issues
#Whether limitation provisions bar a constitutional petition alleging violation of fundamental rights
While constitutional petitions have no limitation period, a petitioner must explain any inordinate delay; nonetheless the objection failed because the cause of action was uncertain.
The court acknowledged the settled position, drawn from Joan Akinyi Kaba Sellah, that statutory limitation does not apply to constitutional petitions alleging breach of fundamental rights. It added, following Mitei vs NSSF, that delay must not be inordinate and must be explained. However, the claim concerned pension/terminal dues rather than unfair dismissal, so when the cause of action accrued was a factual matter unsuitable for determination on a preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- There is no limitation period for filing constitutional petitions alleging breach of fundamental rights, though any delay must not be inordinate and must be explained.
- Where the ascertainment of when the cause of action arose requires factual determination, it cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 6th September 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The parties are directed to proceed with the petition, with the Petitioners to present and explain their case
- 3.Costs in the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
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 courts have observed that though there is no limitation period for filing constitutional petitions where there is a delay, it must not be inordinate and an explanation must be provided.
For this reason alone, I will indulge them and allow them to present their petition and explain their case. The preliminary objection is thus dismissed and I direct the parties to proceed with the petition. Costs in the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently renders the name of the Joan Akinyi Kaba Sellah authority, spelling it 'Joan Akruji Kaba Sellah' when adopted by the court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wandeta & another v National Police Commission & 2 others; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Petition E133 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1758 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 27th August 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1758/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.