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 OutNot stated in the judgment

Sirma & another v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E444 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2730 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2025
SRStella Rutto
973 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out an unfair termination claim filed nearly four years late, confirming the three-year filing deadline is strict.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 5th August 2024 contending that the Claimants' claim was statute-barred under the Employment Act. The objection was canvassed by written submissions; only the Respondents filed submissions, as the Claimants' submissions could not be traced on the court's record or the online portal. The Court, Stella Rutto J, framed a single issue: whether the suit was time-barred. Applying Section 89 of the Employment Act, which bars suits founded on contract of service filed more than three years after the cause of action accrues, the Court held that the cause of action arose on 22nd December 2017, when the Claimants were notified of their termination and had all the facts needed to sue. Time therefore lapsed on or about 22nd December 2020, yet the Claim was filed on 12th June 2024, nearly four years late. Relying on Attorney General & another v Andrew Maina Githinji and Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya, the Court held that Section 89 is mandatory and its limitation period is not extendable, and citing Thuranira Karauri v Agnes Ncheche, that limitation goes to jurisdiction and strips the Court of power to entertain a late claim. The preliminary objection was upheld and the Claim was struck out, 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 claim was filed outside the three-year limitation period under the Employment Act

Holding

Yes; the cause of action arose on 22nd December 2017 when the Claimants were notified of termination, time lapsed on 22nd December 2020, and the claim filed on 12th June 2024 was statute-barred.

Reasoning

Section 89 of the Employment Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits founded on contract of service, running from the date the cause of action arises. Following Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji, the cause of action crystallised on notification of termination. The provision is mandatory and not extendable, and limitation goes to jurisdiction, ousting the Court's power to entertain the claim.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit founded on a contract of service cannot be sustained in court after the lapse of three years from the date the cause of action occurred, and the limitation period is not extendable.
  • In employment disputes, a cause of action arises when the employee is notified of termination.
  • Limitation goes to jurisdiction; a claim filed outside the limitation period strips the court of jurisdiction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 5th August 2024 is upheld
  2. 2.The Claim filed on 12th June 2024 is 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
Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007 (limitation of claims founded on contract of service); Employment and Labour Relations Court original jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Claimants' claim for unfair termination

Filed outside the three-year limitation period under Section 89 of the Employment Act, which strips the Court of jurisdiction

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.

Accordingly, the Preliminary Objection dated 5th August 2024 is upheld with the consequence that the Claim filed on 12th June 2024 is struck out for being time-barred.
p. 3disposition - preliminary objection upheld, claim struck out
It must also be appreciated that Section 89, aforementioned, is couched in mandatory terms and the limitation period is not subject to extension.
p. 2mandatory nature of Section 89 Employment Act limitation period
It is trite law, as stated in Thuranira Karauri v Agnes Ncheche [1997] eKLR, that limitation goes to jurisdiction. As such, a claim filed outside the limitation period strips the Court of jurisdiction to entertain it.
p. 2limitation and jurisdiction
There will be no orders as to costs.
p. 3costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Preliminary objection cites 'Section 90 (sic)' of the Employment Act while the court analyses and applies Section 89; the judgment itself flags the erroneous citation with '(sic)'

minor

Parties are referred to only by role; the names of the Claimants and Respondents are not stated anywhere in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sirma & another v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E444 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2730 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2730/eng@2025-10-03

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