Moronge & 25 others v Kenya National Farmers Federation (Cause E868 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2755 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out 26 former employees' claim because they filed it more than three years after resigning, missing the mandatory Employment Act deadline.
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 Claimants' claim is res judicata
- 2.Whether the suit is statute barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim is res judicata given the prior suit Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 1593 of 2018
The claim is not res judicata because the former suit was declined on a technicality (Rule 9(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules) and its substantive issues were never heard and finally determined.
Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's elements in the Maina Kiai case, the court noted the former suit was dismissed for violation of Rule 9(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules — a technicality — and the court expressly declined to determine the substantive issues of unfair termination and the Kshs. 134,683,007 claim. Since the issues were not 'heard and finally determined', the res judicata bar was not satisfied, though the claims were otherwise substantially the same.
When the cause of action accrued for limitation purposes — at resignation or at dismissal of the prior suit
The cause of action accrued on the Claimants' resignation/exit from employment; the claim filed on 14th October, 2024 is statute barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act.
Relying on Hilarion Mwabolo v Kenya Commercial Bank, David Ngugi Waweru v Attorney General, and Anne Waithira Kimani v Stephen Ndungu Njenga, the court held that time runs from the date of termination or resignation as communicated, not from the conclusion of internal mechanisms or the dismissal of a prior suit. The Claimants left employment between 2015 and 2018, so a claim filed on 14th October, 2024 exceeded the three-year mandatory period, ousting the court's jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection is a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct (Mukisa Biscuit threshold)
- A suit declined on a technicality (misjoinder, defective authority to plead) was not 'heard and finally determined', so res judicata does not attach to the substantive issues
- In employment claims, time under Section 89 of the Employment Act runs from the date of termination/resignation, not from the conclusion of internal mechanisms or dismissal of a prior suit
Court orders
#- 1.Strike out the Claimants' claim dated 20th September, 2024 for being time barred
- 2.Make no orders on 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; limitation under Section 89 of the Employment Act and Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Continuation/prosecution of the Claimants' suit (claim struck out in its entirety)
Claim filed beyond the mandatory three-year limitation period in Section 89 of the Employment Act; cause of action accrued on resignation, not on dismissal of the earlier suit
Costs
I make no orders 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.
In my considered view, though the Claimants' claim herein is all respects substantially the same as Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 1593 of 2018, it is clear that the issues in the suit were not heard and finally determined in the former suit, being evident that the former suit was declined on technicality.
By reason of the foregoing, I find and hold that the Claimants' claim is not Res Judicata.
their date of resignation is the time the cause of action accrued, and not the time when their initial claim was dismissed.
The upshot is that the Claimants' claim though not Res Judicata, is statute barred and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same.
I proceed to strike out the Claimants' claim dated 20th September, 2024 for being time barred.
I make no orders on costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the period during which the Claimants left employment: pleaded as 'between January, 2016 and September, 2018' in the objection but later stated as 'between 2015 and 2018' in the determination
The Claimants' opposition refers to Section 90 of the Employment Act while the court applies Section 89 (previously Section 90), a numbering discrepancy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Alex & 27 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Cause E509 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1145 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1145 (KLR)9 Apr 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moronge & 25 others v Kenya National Farmers Federation (Cause E868 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ELRC Cause (Claim dated 20th September, 2024); predecessor suit: Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 1593 of 2018 — Charles Mbuthia & 45 Others v. Kenya National Farmers Federation & 2 Others. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2755/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.