Rasesh Shah v Anil D. Shah t/a Amratlal Hardware Stores
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a 19-year-old claim for unpaid leave and gratuity because it was filed far too late, though the claimant avoided paying costs.
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 suit herein is statute barred
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim for terminal dues accrued in 2006, filed in 2026, is statute barred
Yes - the suit was filed 19 years out of time; limitation under the Limitation of Actions Act cannot be extended for contract claims and the court lacks jurisdiction
The claim accrued on termination in December 2006. The repealed Employment Act had no limitation provision, so section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act applied. Binding Court of Appeal authority (Divecon v Samani; Adagala) holds contract claims must be filed within the limitation period, which cannot be extended. Incapacity from criminal proceedings does not stop time running. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld.
Legal principles established
#- A claim founded on contract, including employment, must be filed within the statutory limitation period, which cannot be extended
- Ongoing criminal proceedings do not stop the running of limitation time under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the preliminary objection
- 2.Struck out the suit
- 3.Each party to bear own costs - no costs awarded against the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1)(a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
Relief refused
#Annual leave pay of KShs. 163,366 and service gratuity of KShs. 100,020
Suit filed 19 years after cause of action accrued; claim founded on contract is time-barred and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it
Costs
No costs awarded against the claimant; the court declined to condemn him to pay costs given his long incarceration - effectively each party bearing their own 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.
Therefore, I uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the suit. However, I will not condemn the claimant to pay costs considering that he has spent a long time behind bars where he was not earning any income.
any claim founded on a contract must be filed within the limitation period given by a statute. It is also clear that once the limitation period expires, it cannot be extended and the claim becomes stale.
no law supports the said contention even when the civil claim and the criminal proceedings arise from the same facts.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act gives six months for contract claims, contradicting Divecon's six-year holding quoted in the same judgment
Header reads '(ON Makau J on 24th September 2026)' - apparent typographical error in the coram line
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rasesh Shah v Anil D. Shah t/a Amratlal Hardware Stores", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E237 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2546/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.