Emmanuel Cheluget Lelgo v Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that the three-year clock for suing over dismissal starts only after an internal appeal is decided, so the employee's claim survived.
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 Claimant's suit is statute-barred under Section 89 of the Employment Act, 2007
Key legal issues
#When did the cause of action accrue for purposes of Section 89 of the Employment Act?
The cause of action accrued on 6th December 2022, when the Respondent communicated the final decision rejecting the Claimant's internal appeal, not on the date of summary dismissal
Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Francis Kimani Kiige v NHIF, where a disciplinary code forms part of the employee's terms and conditions of service, the right of appeal is contractual. The initial termination is tentative until the appeal is waived or exhausted, so no final grievance exists to found the cause of action until the appeal is determined. The Respondent did not controvert the Claimant's chronology.
Whether the suit filed on 4th December 2025 was within the limitation period
Yes - the suit was instituted just within the three-year period prescribed by Section 89, counting from 6th December 2022
Counting three years from the accrual date of 6th December 2022, the suit filed on 4th December 2025 fell within the statutory period. The limitation in Section 89 is mandatory, but on the correct accrual date the claim was timely, so the preliminary objection failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee has a contractual right of internal appeal embedded in the terms and conditions of service, the initial termination is tentative until the appeal is waived or exhausted, and the cause of action accrues when the final decision on the appeal is communicated
- The three-year limitation in Section 89 of the Employment Act is mandatory
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations jurisdiction); suit under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Claimant's claim with costs as sought by the Respondent
The cause of action accrued on 6th December 2022 upon communication of the final decision on the internal appeal, so the suit filed 4th December 2025 was within the three-year limitation period
Costs
Costs shall be 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 accordingly find and hold that the Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2026 is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed.
Costs shall be in the cause.
the cause of action accrued on 6th December 2022, when the final decision rejecting the appeal was communicated
where the disciplinary code forms part of the employee's terms and conditions of service, the right of appeal is itself contractual
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering jumps from 4 to 7; paragraphs 5 and 6 absent from the ruling
Dhanesvar v Mehta case name appears with an unusual double 'v' construction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emmanuel Cheluget Lelgo v Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E1211 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2541/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.