Wanjohi v Laikipia University (Cause E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2396 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a claim cannot be struck out as time-barred before both sides file their documents and give evidence.
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 Claim is statute-barred under Section 90 [revised Section 89] of the Employment Act, 2007, on the basis that the contract ended in December 2020 and the Claim was filed in December 2024, outside the 3-year limitation period
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claim is statute-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007
The preliminary objection was declined; the Court held it could not determine limitation at the preliminary stage where the nature of the engagement and the date time began to run are disputed and require evidence at a full trial.
The Respondent had not filed its Statement of Response or documents establishing the nature of the contract(s) issued to the Claimant. The Claimant exhibited various letters of appointment with different terms, and it was unclear when amounts payable were to be paid. The Claimant asserted her duties as a part-time lecturer continued beyond 2020 through marking examinations, so when time began to run required establishment through a full trial. The Respondent denied any engagement at all, contradicting the assertion that the contract ended in December 2020.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection on limitation premised on the date the employment contract ended should not be determined before pleadings are closed, documents exchanged and evidence heard, where the date the cause of action accrued is disputed.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is declined.
- 2.No order on the costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Claim for offending Section 89 of the Employment Act
The Court found that the Respondent rushed to raise the preliminary objection without placing its pleadings and documents on record, and that parties must first complete pleadings, exchange documents and give evidence before the Court can determine the nature of the engagement and when time began to run.
Costs
No order on the 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.
Only after examining their pleadings, documents and hearing their evidence, can the Court reach an informed decision, on all the issues placed before it.
It is important that parties are given adequate time to complete their pleadings, file and exchange documents, and are heard, to establish the nature of their engagement if any.
it is ordered: a. The Preliminary Objection is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the limitation is under Section 90 but immediately notes the revised Section is 89, and throughout refers to Section 89; the statutory section reference is internally inconsistent.
The coram/judgment does not disclose the case title, case number or neutral citation; the parties are referred to generically as 'The Respondent' and 'The Claimant' without names.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjohi v Laikipia University (Cause E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2396 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2396/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.