[2014] KEELRC 242 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 242 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's employment was terminated in September 2007 and the suit was filed on 18th March 2014, more than six years after the cause of action arose. Since the Employment Act, 2007 was not operational at the material time, the applicable law was the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22), which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELRC 242 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Alex Daniel Ngere; Respondent: Harambee Sacco Society Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 28 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Ruling on Limitation Objection
Outcome
claim dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation Periods Employment Termination Jurisdiction Employment Contracts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Daniel Ngere

Claimant

Harambee Sacco Society Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Ruling on Limitation Objection

  1. 1 Whether the claim was filed within the statutory limitation period for contract-based claims.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim filed outside the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's employment was terminated in September 2007 and the suit was filed on 18th March 2014, more than six years after the cause of action arose. Since the Employment Act, 2007 was not operational at the material time, the applicable law was the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22), which prescribes a six-year limitation period for contract-based claims. The court held that the claim was filed outside this period and was therefore time-barred. The court reviewed and set aside its earlier ex parte order, finding it was made in error, and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction due to limitation.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed for being time-barred.
  • No order as to costs.