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

Kamore v Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E617 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2235 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 July 2025
SRSTELLA RUTTO
969 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out an unfair termination claim filed more than three years after dismissal, confirming the countdown starts on termination, not on appeal outcomes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Stella Rutto, Judge) determined the Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th December 2024, canvassed by written submissions, contending that the Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and Sections 3(1) and (2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, Cap 39 because the suit was time-barred. The sole issue framed was whether the suit was time-barred. The Claimant pleaded that his employment was terminated effective 9th February 2021, and he filed his Memorandum of Claim on 6th August 2024. Adopting the Court of Appeal's decision in Attorney General & another v Andrew Maina Githinji, the Court held that the cause of action crystallised on 9th February 2021 when the Claimant was terminated, not on 3rd April 2024 when his appeal against termination was determined. The three-year limitation period under Section 90 therefore lapsed on or about 9th February 2024, making the claim filed in August 2024 statute-barred. The Court held Section 90 is couched in mandatory terms and not extendable, and following Thuranira Karauri v Agnes Ncheche, that limitation goes to jurisdiction. Relying also on Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya, the Court sustained the Preliminary Objection and struck out the Claim for being time-barred, with no orders as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.whether the suit herein is time-barred

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

The claim filed on 6th August 2024 was filed beyond the three-year limitation period running from the 9th February 2021 termination and is statute-barred.

Reasoning

Section 90 bars suits founded on contract of service after three years. Following Attorney General & another v Andrew Maina Githinji, the cause of action accrued on dismissal when all facts were known, not on the determination of the internal appeal. The claim filed 6th August 2024 was outside the period. Section 90 is mandatory and not extendable, and limitation goes to jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit founded on a contract of service cannot be sustained after three years from when the cause of action occurred; in employment matters the cause of action accrues on termination, not on the outcome of an appeal.
  • Limitation goes to jurisdiction; a time-barred suit cannot be entertained.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 27th December 2024 sustained
  2. 2.Claim filed on 6th August 2024 struck out for being time-barred
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

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

SR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment Act, Section 90; Public Authorities Limitations Act, Cap 39 (limitation as a bar to jurisdiction)

Relief refused

#

The Claimant's unfair termination claim (not determined on the merits)

suit filed beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act

p. 2

Costs

There will be no orders as to costs.

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 the premises, the Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 27th December 2024 is sustained, with the consequence that the Claim filed on 6th August 2024 is struck out for being time-barred.
p. 2disposition - striking out for limitation
Section 90, aforementioned, is couched in mandatory terms. Indeed, it may very well be said that the provision is cast in stone and the limitation period is not subject to extension.
p. 2mandatory nature of Section 90
the issue of limitation goes to the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit.
p. 2limitation and jurisdiction
There will be no orders as to costs.
p. 2costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Names of the actual parties are not given in the judgment extract; only roles appear.

minor

The case number is not stated in the judgment extract.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamore v Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E617 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2235 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2235/eng@2025-07-25

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