Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi City County Public Service Board (Cause 92 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2555 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 termination of the Claimant's member, Mr Jefierson Mulwa, was wrongful, unlawful, unprocedural and unjustified, thereby entitling the Claimant to the prayers and reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim
- 2.Whether the Claimant's instant claim is statutorily time-barred
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim was statutorily time-barred under section 89 of the Employment Act
Yes. The dismissal was on 22 November 2013; the Union had until 21 November 2016 to sue but filed on 19 January 2017, outside the limitation period.
Section 89 of the Employment Act prescribes a 3-year limitation period for actions arising out of a contract of service. The Grievant's internal appeals to the Respondent and the Public Service Commission, and the reporting of a trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary, did not stop time from running. The Court, bound by Court of Appeal decisions, held that despite ADR processes an action must be commenced within 3 years of accrual of the cause of action. The Union filed outside the prescribed timelines and the Cause was struck out.
Whether the Grievant's pursuit of internal appeals and a trade dispute excused the delay
No. The Court acknowledged the Grievant was diligent and that the outcome may not meet standards of justice, but was bound by binding precedent that ADR does not toll limitation.
The Grievant appealed to the Respondent, appealed to the Public Service Commission, and reported a trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary, Labour. The Court recognised that appellate organs and ADR processes often do not conclude in good time, and that the outcome may not meet standards of justice. However, following G4S Security Services and Rift Valley Railways, the Court held time does not stop running during conciliation or out-of-court negotiations, and the claim had gone stale.
Legal principles established
#- Time does not stop running on the commencement of conciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; an action arising out of a contract of service must be commenced within 3 years of accrual of the cause of action despite internal appeals or ADR processes
Court orders
#- 1.The Cause is struck out
- 2.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference to jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court not expressly stated; dispute lodged as a trade dispute under the Labour Relations Act, 2007
Relief refused
#All prayers and reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim for unlawful summary dismissal of the Grievant
The claim was filed outside the 3-year limitation period prescribed by section 89 of the Employment Act
Costs
No order on costs - 'The Cause is struck out with no order on 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.
Time does not stop running on the commencement of conciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provided for under the constitution or any other law
The decisions from the Court of Appeal make it clear that, despite and in spite of the alternative dispute resolution processes, an action should be commenced within 3 years after the accrual of the cause of action.
Regrettably, the Court finds that the Union moved the Court outside the prescribed limitation time and the Court must put down its pen.
The Cause is struck out with no order on costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the Cause is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the filing date of 19 January 2017 is given
The judgment is dated 25 September 2025 but records the Cause as heard on 21 May 2025, and paragraph 2 says the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Response on 3 February 2017; internal chronology is consistent but the Cause number remains unidentified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi City County Public Service Board (Cause 92 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Cause filed 19 January 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2555/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.