Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed or unlawfully treated at work should move to court within three years of the disputed action, a recent ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court has shown.
The court dismissed an application by a former employee of Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation who sought permission to file an unfair termination suit outside the statutory deadline, ruling that judges have no power to extend time once the limitation period has expired.
The decision highlights the importance of understanding timelines in employment disputes, particularly for workers pursuing internal appeals or seeking documents from employers before approaching the courts.
The case involved Ms Evaline Cherotich Chepkwony, who worked in the corporation's Commercial Unit Warehouse at Nyayo House in Nairobi until September 1, 2022, when she was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.
In court documents, Ms Chepkwony argued that her dismissal was unfair, unlawful and procedurally flawed. She maintained that the employer had violated provisions of the Employment Act governing disciplinary processes and fair termination.
According to her application, the dispute stemmed from an internal audit conducted between October and November 2021. She stated that she responded to allegations arising from the audit and explained that some funds cited as having been misappropriated were actually personal advances rather than corporate funds. She also pointed to weaknesses in internal controls that had allegedly been identified by the employer's own audit reports.
She further told the court that she attended a disciplinary hearing on July 14, 2022, but was denied access to critical documents that were necessary for her defence. These included the audit report, witness statements and reconciliation documents. According to her, the absence of those records impaired her ability to defend herself during the disciplinary proceedings and subsequently challenge the decision.
Following her dismissal, Ms Chepkwony sought to appeal through the Public Service Commission (PSC). She wrote to her employer on September 21, 2022, requesting documents that had been relied upon in terminating her employment. She argued that the documents were necessary for her intended appeal before the commission.
The former employee said the corporation declined to provide the requested information, prompting intervention by the PSC. According to court records, the commission wrote to the corporation on January 5, 2023, directing it to furnish the requested documents and citing constitutional and statutory provisions guaranteeing access to information.
However, Ms Chepkwony maintained that the documents were still not supplied. She again raised the issue in May 2023, specifically identifying the lead investigator's report and other disciplinary materials that she claimed had not been availed to her. She argued that the failure to disclose the documents frustrated her efforts to pursue an appeal.
Her position before the court was that the employer's conduct amounted to concealment of material facts. She argued that because of the alleged concealment, the limitation period should not begin running until she was in a position to reasonably pursue her claim.
The claimant further stated that on May 14, 2025, the Public Service Commission advised her to file a claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court and indicated that she remained within the limitation period at that time. She said that challenges including securing legal representation and raising funds delayed the filing of the case until October 2025.
She also argued that the dispute went beyond an ordinary employment disagreement because it involved alleged violations of constitutional rights, including the right to access information, fair labour practices, fair administrative action and a fair hearing.
Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation opposed the application, insisting that the law was clear on the timelines for filing employment claims.
The corporation argued that Section 90 of the Employment Act requires employment-related claims to be filed within three years of the act complained of. Since Ms Chepkwony had been dismissed on September 1, 2022, the deadline for filing a claim expired on September 1, 2025.
The employer further maintained that courts have no jurisdiction to extend time in employment disputes and relied on previous Court of Appeal decisions supporting that position.
It also disputed claims that documents had been concealed, telling the court that relevant information had been supplied to the claimant on November 22, 2021, and again on October 4, 2022, and May 8, 2023.
In her ruling, Justice Hellen Wasilwa focused on the legal question of whether the court could grant leave to file an employment claim outside the statutory period.
The judge cited the law governing employment disputes and concluded that it leaves no room for extension of time once the three-year period has expired.
“Under this section, no room is left to the court to allow any suit to be filed outside the three-year window,” Justice Wasilwa said. “The court's hands are actually fettered when it comes to extending time to file a time-barred claim outside time.”
The court consequently dismissed the application, although it made no order on costs.
The ruling serves as a warning to employees that regardless of ongoing correspondence, appeals or efforts to obtain documents, employment disputes should be filed within the prescribed three-year period to avoid being shut out by the law.
