Ndirangu v Nyandarua County Government & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1911 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The ELRC in Nakuru struck out an employment petition filed decades too late, confirming that constitutional labels cannot defeat Kenya's three-year employment claim deadline.
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 preliminary objection before this Honourable Court is merited and should be allowed
- 2.Whether the petition is time barred under section 89 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether an employment dispute dressed as a constitutional petition may evade limitation
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition is time barred under section 89 of the Employment Act
Yes - the petition filed 28 years after the allegations is time barred and cannot be salvaged by framing it as a constitutional petition
The petitioner was appointed in 1995 and the disciplinary allegations arose then; he sought reinstatement by letter only in 2011 and filed the petition in 2024. Section 89 bars employment actions not commenced within three years, and reinstatement is only available within three years of dismissal. No extension of time is possible.
Whether the petition raises genuine constitutional violations
No - it is a straightforward employment dispute that does not become constitutional by being labelled as such
Following Elizabeth Mburu v Kenya Breweries Ltd and Petronella Nellie Chirwa v Transnet Ltd, the court held the attempt to elevate the employment contest to the constitutional platform is misplaced. The claims under Articles 27, 28, 41 and 50(1) were merely an employment dispute about alleged misappropriation and failure to report to work.
Nature of a preliminary objection
A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law assuming all pleaded facts are correct; limitation qualifies
The court applied Mukisa Biscuits and Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, holding that an objection must be based on pure law and cannot require factual determination or judicial discretion. The limitation objection met this threshold.
Legal principles established
#- Employment-related civil actions must be instituted within three years of the act, neglect or default complained of, and within twelve months of cessation for continuing injuries
- A matter does not become constitutional merely because a party labels it so; an employment dispute cannot be elevated to a constitutional platform to evade limitation
- Once the limitation period under section 89 of the Employment Act has elapsed, the court cannot extend time
- Reinstatement orders are only available within three years of dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 25th February 2025 is merited and allowed
- 2.The Petition is disallowed as time barred and is struck off
- 3.Each party to bear its costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 27, 28, 41 and 50(1) of the Constitution invoked in the petition; Employment Act section 89 on limitation; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act section 12(3) on court powers
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
Reinstatement under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act is only available within three years of dismissal, long past
Constitutional claims under Articles 27, 28, 41 and 50(1)
The dispute is a straightforward employment matter, not a constitutional issue, and the claim is time barred
Costs
Each party to bear its costs of the suit.
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 preliminary objection dated 25th February 2025 is merited and the Petition is disallowed as it is time barred. The petition is struck ofi.
Each party to bear its costs of the suit.
When time has elapsed as provided in Section 89 of the Employment Act the court has no option but to fold its hands and send the case to abyss. There is no room to extend the time.
Limitation is not in the books for show it is meant to protect a party so as not to meet a case where witnesses are gone, memories faded and documents misplaced eternally.
a matter does not become a constitutional matter merely because the party calls it one.
Issues in the judgment
#The preliminary objection pleads section 90 of the Employment Act but the quoted text and the court's analysis refer to section 89
The court found the petition was filed both 24 years and 28 years after the alleged violation
Typographical errors 'struck ofi' for 'struck off' and 'afiord' in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndirangu v Nyandarua County Government & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 23rd September 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1911/eng@2025-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.