[2016] KEELRC 951 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant was dismissed on 27 June 2009 and filed his claim on 26 September 2012, exceeding the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court held that the statutory limitation is strict and that no action can be entertained after the lapse of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 951 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Alfred Ambululi Ogalo; Respondent: Valley Bakery Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 190 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim struck out as statute barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Summary Dismissal, Unfair Termination, Employment Contracts
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred Ambululi Ogalo
Claimant
Valley Bakery Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cause of action is statute/time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair.
- 3 What remedies, if any, are available to the Claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant was dismissed on 27 June 2009 and filed his claim on 26 September 2012, exceeding the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court held that the statutory limitation is strict and that no action can be entertained after the lapse of the prescribed period. The court further relied on the authority of Divecon v Samani, emphasizing that courts lack jurisdiction to entertain time-barred claims. The fact that the Claimant had previously filed and withdrawn a similar claim did not extend or revive the limitation period. Consequently, the court struck out the claim as statute barred without considering the merits...
Court Disposition
claim struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The Memorandum of Claim filed in Court on 26 September 2012 is struck out with costs to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT
NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 190 OF 2013
(Originally Nairobi Cause No. 175 of 2012)
ALFRED AMBULULI OGALO CLAIMANT
v
VALLEY BAKERY LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Alfred Ambululi Ogalo (Claimant) sued Valley Bakery Ltd (Respondent) on 26 September 2012 alleging unfair termination of employment.
2. The Respondent filed a Reply to Memorandum of Claim on 14 January 2013 and on 6 November 2013, the Claimant filed anAmended Memorandum of Claimstating the issue in dispute aswrongful dismissal and/or unfair termination.
3. As a result, the Respondent filed a Reply to Amended Memorandum of Claimon 11 November 2013 which prompted the Claimant to file a Rejoinder on 20 November 2013.
4. On 13 January 2014, the Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection contending that the cause of action was statute time barred in terms of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
5. On 26 February 2014, when the objection came up for hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed to compromise the suit and sought for time to record a consent. No settlement was reached and the Respondent proposed that the objection be taken during the hearing.
6. The cause was heard on 2 February 2016 and the Claimant filed his submissions on 22 February 2016, while the Respondent filed its submissions on 30 March 2016.
7. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions and adopts the issues as set out in the submissions, to wit, whether the cause of action is statute/time barred, whether the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unfair and appropriate remedies including entitlements accruing out of the employment contract.
Whether cause of action statute/time barred
8. The Claimant pleaded in paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of Claim that he was dismissed on 27 June 2009. The pleading is borne out by the letter of summary dismissal annexed to the Memorandum of Claim.
9. The Memorandum of Claim was lodged in the Court’s registry in Nairobi on 26 September 2012.
10. These are irrefutable facts.
11. It can be deduced from the pleaded facts that the Memorandum of Claim was lodged in Court some 3 years and 3 months after the cause of action accrued. In other words, the legal injury/actionable wrong complained of were occasioned some 3 years and 3 months earlier.
12. Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 which is the law prescribing limitation for causes of action arising out of a contract of service provides that Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained of or in case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after the cessation thereof.
13. The Claimant herein commenced the claim more than 3 years after the prescribed period while the law is clear that no such cause of action lies or can be instituted.
14. The Court therefore finds and holds that the cause of action does not lie, and the finding is fortified by the ratio by the Court of Appeal in Divecon v Samani (1995-1998) EA 48 that no one shall have the right or power to bring after the end of six years from the date on which a cause of action accrued, an action founded on contract. The corollary to this is that no court may or shall have the right or power to entertain what cannot be done namely, an action that is brought in contract six years after the cause of action arose… (for six years read three years- my considered view)
15. The fact that the Claimant filed and withdrew a claim before the Subordinate Court does not help his case. In fact, he denied, despite being shown copy of the decree from the Subordinate Court that he had filed and withdrawn a claim based on the same facts/cause of action and this goes to his credibility.
16. Because of the conclusion reached, it is not necessary for the Court to embark on a journey of examining the other issues posed for determination.
17. The Court orders the Memorandum of Claim filed in Court on 26 September 2012 to be struck out with costs to the Respondent.
18. It is so ordered.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 15thday of July 2016.
Radido Stephen Judge
Appearances For Claimant Mrs. Ndeda instructed by Ndeda & Associates For Respondent Mrs. Kairu instructed Sheth & Wathigo Advocates Court Assistant Nixon