Anne Njoki Wachira v Kenya County Government Workers Union
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employer's promise to pay retirement dues in instalments keeps the employee's claim alive, so the case proceeds to trial.
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 Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection raises pure points of law
- 2.Whether the Claimant's suit is statute-barred and thereby ousting the jurisdiction of this Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection raised pure points of law
It did - limitation and jurisdiction are pure points of law manifesting on the pleadings
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits test and its approval by the Supreme Court in Joho v Shahbal. The grounds pleaded (statutory time-bar under section 89 of the Employment Act and consequent lack of jurisdiction) arise by clear implication from the pleadings and need no further evidence, so the objection met the legal threshold.
Whether the suit was statute-barred under section 89 of the Employment Act
Not time-barred; the instalment agreement made the default a continuing injury, and the suit was filed within 12 months of May 2025
The Respondent's undertaking to pay Kshs.8,589,217 by instalments of Kshs.100,000 until payment in full was undisputed and would take over six years, extending the claim to about May 2025. Default from June 2021 therefore constituted a continuing injury under section 89, and the suit filed on 19th November 2025 fell within 12 months of the last due instalment.
Legal principles established
#- An agreement to pay terminal benefits by instalments until payment in full extends the life of the claim; default on instalments constitutes a continuing injury under section 89 of the Employment Act
- A proper preliminary objection raises pure points of law requiring no further evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th February 2026 is overruled
- 2.The Respondent is at liberty to prosecute its defence of limitation for consideration on merits
- 3.Costs in the cause
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 (suit based on contract of service and gratuity)
Relief refused
#Dismissal and/or striking out of the suit with costs sought by the Respondent via preliminary objection
Objection overruled; suit held not time-barred as instalment agreement extended the claim's life
Costs
Costs in the cause.
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.
I over rule the Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th February 2026. However, for avoidance of doubt, the Respondent will be at liberty to prosecute its defence of limitation for consideration on merits. Costs in the cause.
the breach became a continuing injury within the meaning of section 89 of the Employment Act. Accordingly, the suit having been filed on 19th November 2025, was not time barred since it was filed within 12 months from May 2025 when the last instalment of her gratuity was due.
The case is distinguishable from the cases cited by the Respondent because in the said cases there was no “agreement for payment of terminal dues by instalments until the payment in full.”
A preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication from the pleadings, and which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant's gender inconsistently stated
Conflicting gratuity amounts pleaded
Filing date inconsistency: 16th October 2025 vs 19th November 2025
Header reads '(ON Makau J on 24th September 2026)' - anomalous coram notation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anne Njoki Wachira v Kenya County Government Workers Union", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E1135 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2510/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.