1. Before this Court is an originating summons dated 10 th of June 2026 brought under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 seeking the extension of time within which the Applicant may be file an intended suit against the Respondent.
2. The Applicant states that the six-year statutory limitation period for the intended suit expired in March 2026 and the delay in filing has been for a period of 2 months namely April and May 2026 on two grounds; that there was non-determination of an Application at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi and that active negotiations between the parties were ongoing and had not been concluded as at the time of the expiry of the limitation period.
3. The Application is supported by an Affidavit sworn by JOSEPH GATHII MURAGURI who deposes that he had been engaged by the Respondent as a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist where he was entitled to a house allowance of Kshs.105,000/ per month. He further depose that the intended claim is for reimbursement of the sum of Kshs.2,100,000/= being amounts incurred by the Applicant in the performance of his contractual duties.
4. The Applicant served the Respondent but no response was received. The Applicant therefore prays for the Court to allow the application and that it is unopposed.
5. This Court has considered the Application and supporting affidavit and from the onset notes that the issue for determination is an Employment and Labour in nature. This therefore calls for my determination on whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
6. Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution establishes the Employment and Labour Relations Court as a superior court with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour issues.
7. It is now settled that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in matters reserved to the Courts of equal status established under Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
8. The intended suit disclosed by the Applicant concerns an employment dispute arising from alleged non-reimbursement of allowances during a contract with the Respondent. This properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
9. To the extent that the present application seeks leave to institute proceedings before the Employment and Labour Relations Court, serious jurisdictional concerns arise as to whether this Court can entertain a matter whose substantive dispute falls outside its jurisdiction.
10. In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989), Justice Nyarangi stated, "Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step”.
11. As such, this Court has no business determining a matter that is clearly for the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
12. Consequently, the Application herein is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
ANNE.M. OKUTOYI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Andati for the Applicant.
N/A for the Respondent.
Ms. Mokeira-Court Assistant.
2. The Applicant states that the six-year statutory limitation period for the intended suit expired in March 2026 and the delay in filing has been for a period of 2 months namely April and May 2026 on two grounds; that there was non-determination of an Application at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi and that active negotiations between the parties were ongoing and had not been concluded as at the time of the expiry of the limitation period.
3. The Application is supported by an Affidavit sworn by JOSEPH GATHII MURAGURI who deposes that he had been engaged by the Respondent as a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist where he was entitled to a house allowance of Kshs.105,000/ per month. He further depose that the intended claim is for reimbursement of the sum of Kshs.2,100,000/= being amounts incurred by the Applicant in the performance of his contractual duties.
4. The Applicant served the Respondent but no response was received. The Applicant therefore prays for the Court to allow the application and that it is unopposed.
5. This Court has considered the Application and supporting affidavit and from the onset notes that the issue for determination is an Employment and Labour in nature. This therefore calls for my determination on whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
6. Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution establishes the Employment and Labour Relations Court as a superior court with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour issues.
7. It is now settled that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in matters reserved to the Courts of equal status established under Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
8. The intended suit disclosed by the Applicant concerns an employment dispute arising from alleged non-reimbursement of allowances during a contract with the Respondent. This properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
9. To the extent that the present application seeks leave to institute proceedings before the Employment and Labour Relations Court, serious jurisdictional concerns arise as to whether this Court can entertain a matter whose substantive dispute falls outside its jurisdiction.
10. In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989), Justice Nyarangi stated, "Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step”.
11. As such, this Court has no business determining a matter that is clearly for the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
12. Consequently, the Application herein is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
ANNE.M. OKUTOYI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Andati for the Applicant.
N/A for the Respondent.
Ms. Mokeira-Court Assistant.