Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMombasa CMELRC Appeal arising from Mombasa CMELRC No. E763 of 2023· [2025] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)

Kitui Flor Mills Limited v Katiru (Appeal E264 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 July 2025
2,834 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court threw out a worker's unfair termination award because the claim was filed just one day after the three-year deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal against the judgment of the magistrates' court (ELRC) at Mombasa delivered on 5 December 2024 in CMELRC No. E763 of 2023, in which the respondent's claim of unfair termination after 23 years of service as a packer was allowed as pleaded, with costs and interest. The appellant, the employer, raised 16 grounds, principally that the magistrate wrongly shifted the burden of proving employment to the employer and relied on medical examination certificates - some naming a different entity, Dola Flour Mills - as conclusive proof of employment. The appellant also contended that the claim, filed on 28 November 2023 after termination on 27 November 2020, was time-barred under section 89 of the Employment Act. The court, applying the first-appeal principles in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd and Peter v Sunday Post Ltd, re-evaluated the evidence. It held that a medical examination certificate is not a primary record of proof of employment, but that the appellant, as custodian of employment records under sections 10(7) and 74 of the Employment Act, failed to produce records that would have resolved the issue. Decisively, the court found that time began running on 27 November 2020, and that filing on 28 November 2023 fell outside the mandatory three-year period in section 89, which is incapable of enlargement, following Court of Appeal authority. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed: the trial court's judgment was set aside in its entirety, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Burden of proof of employment relationship

Holding

Once the employer denied the relationship and the respondent's certificates did not name the employer, the burden lay on the respondent; but the appellant's failure to produce employment records justified the magistrate's finding that the claim was not materially challenged

Reasoning

The court held that a medical examination certificate is not primary proof of employment and that where the employer's name is not listed the burden shifted to the respondent. However, the appellant's witness confirmed the packaging department and casual engagements, and the appellant, as the custodian of employment records under sections 10(7) and 74 of the Employment Act, failed to produce them, supporting the trial court's approach on proof of employment.

p. 5
02

Limitation under section 89 of the Employment Act

Holding

The claim filed on 28 November 2023 in respect of termination on 27 November 2020 was outside the 3-year limitation period and time-barred

Reasoning

Employment ceased on 27 November 2020 by oral notice; time started running then. Filing on 28 November 2023 exceeded the 3-year period fixed by section 89, which is mandatory and incapable of enlargement, following Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, Beatrice Kahai Adagala and David Ngugi Waweru. Consequently the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

p. 5
03

Raising a point of law on limitation on appeal

Holding

A point of law on limitation may be raised even on appeal, though it ought to have been raised at the earliest opportunity before the trial court

Reasoning

The court observed that limitation objections should be raised before trial proceedings continue to avoid wasting judicial time, but confirmed that an appellate court may still address an objection on a point of law arising from the pleadings.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 89 of the Employment Act is mandatory; a claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years of cessation of employment and time cannot be enlarged
  • A medical examination certificate is not a primary record of proof of employment
  • Time in unfair termination claims begins to run on the date employment ceased

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment of the trial court delivered on 5 December 2024 is set aside in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party is to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Employment ActSection 89
  • Employment ActSections 10(7) and 74
  • Evidence ActSections 107 and 109

Cases cited (13)

  • Casmir Nyankuru Nyaberi v Mwakikar Agencies Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Samuel Wambugu Ndirangu v 2NK Sacco Society Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Owiti v C&A Security Services
    (Cause 2402 of 2016) KEELRC 4104 (KLR)
  • Mburu v Gillys Security Investigations Services Ltd
    (Cause 779 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1348 (KLR)
  • Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction [EA] Limited
    [2021] eKLR
  • Everflora Limited v Silikhan
    [2024] KEELRC 239 (KLR)
  • Abigael Jepkosgei Yator v China Hanan International Co. Ltd
    [2018] eKLR / [2018] KEELRC 2541 (KLR)
  • Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd
  • Peter v Sunday Post Ltd
  • Baruk v Board of Management St George's High School
    [2024] KEELRC 1491 (KLR)
  • Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji & Another
    (2016) eKLR
  • Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya
    [2015] eKLR
  • David Ngugi Waweru v Attorney General & Another
    [2017] eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Mombasa
CMELRC No. E763 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court (ELRC) judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kitui Flor Mills Limited v Katiru (Appeal E264 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa CMELRC Appeal arising from Mombasa CMELRC No. E763 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2099/eng@2025-07-17

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