[2016] KEELRC 1199 (KLR)
The court found that the claimants' cause of action, being based on events and agreements from 1994, was time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, which provides a 6-year limitation period for contractual claims. The court accepted the claimants' submission that section 90 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1199 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benjamin Nderitu Ngujiri; Applicant: Duncan Wahome Kienyere; Applicant: Samuel Mutahi Karuoya; Applicant: Richard Kuria Mugane; Applicant: Paul Kamunya Muratha; Applicant: Paul Ng’ero Guandaru; Applicant: Maina Matu; Applicant: Githu Njuguna; Applicant: John Wanjohi Wambugu; Applicant: Linus Nderitu Munuhe; Applicant: Wanjii Kariuki; Applicant: Samuel Nderitu Mwaniki; Applicant: John Thuita Wanjohi; Respondent: The Board of Management Kamwenja Teachers College
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 227 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit dismissed as time barred
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Terminal Dues, Employment Contracts, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Benjamin Nderitu Ngujiri
Applicant
Duncan Wahome Kienyere
Applicant
Samuel Mutahi Karuoya
Applicant
Richard Kuria Mugane
Applicant
Paul Kamunya Muratha
Applicant
Paul Ng’ero Guandaru
Applicant
Maina Matu
Applicant
Githu Njuguna
Applicant
John Wanjohi Wambugu
Applicant
Linus Nderitu Munuhe
Applicant
Wanjii Kariuki
Applicant
Samuel Nderitu Mwaniki
Applicant
John Thuita Wanjohi
Applicant
The Board of Management Kamwenja Teachers College
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimants' suit is time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the claimants' suit is time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22.
- 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to terminal dues claimed after retirement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimants' cause of action, being based on events and agreements from 1994, was time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, which provides a 6-year limitation period for contractual claims. The court accepted the claimants' submission that section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 did not apply as the cause of action arose before the Act came into force. However, the claim was still statute-barred under the general limitation period for contracts. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld, and the suit dismissed as time barred.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed as time barred
Orders
- The claimants' suit is dismissed as time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 227 OF 2015
BENJAMIN NDERITU NGUNJIRI............................................................................................................................1ST CLAIMANT
DUNCAN WAHOME KIENYERE..............................................................................................................................2ND CLAIMANT
SAMUEL MUTAHI KARUOYA..................................................................................................................................3RD CLAIMANT
RICHARD KURIA MUGANE......................................................................................................................................4TH CLAIMANT
PAUL KAMUNYA MURATHA....................................................................................................................................5TH CLAIMANT
PAUL NG’ERO GUANDARU.....................................................................................................................................6TH CLAIMANT
MAINA MATU............................................................................................................................................................7TH CLAIMANT
GITHU NJUGUNA.....................................................................................................................................................8TH CLAIMANT
JOHN WANJOHI WAMBUGU.................................................................................................................................9TH CLAIMANT
LINUS NDERITU MUNUHE...................................................................................................................................10TH CLAIMANT
WANJII KARIUKI....................................................................................................................................................11TH CLAIMANT
SAMUEL NDERITU MWANIKI..............................................................................................................................12TH CLAIMANT
JOHN THUITA WANJOHI.....................................................................................................................................13TH CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT KAMWENJA TEACHERS COLLEGE............................................................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday, 13th May, 2016)
RULING
The claimants filed on 11. 12. 2015 the statement of claim in person and subsequently appointed Warutere & Associates Advocates to act for them. They claim terminal dues following their retirement on diverse dates. The terminal dues include unpaid house allowance, underpayment, and NHIF contributions deducted but not remitted. They also claim medical allowance and house allowance for those who were not provided the relevant housing accommodation. They served either as cooks or as head cook in the respondent’s kitchen department.
The respondent through A.M. Njagi, Litigation Counsel, for the Attorney General, filed on 04. 02. 2016 the notice of preliminary objection on the ground that the suit was time barred both under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 prescribing 3 years as time of limitation in employment contracts and was time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 prescribing 6 years as time of limitation for suits in contracts generally. The replying affidavit of Davidson Warutere Iregi was filed on 24. 03. 2016 to oppose the preliminary objection.
First, it is submitted for the claimants that the cause of action arose long before the coming into operation of the Employment Act, 2007 so that section 90 of the Act does not apply and the court finds as much by reason of the claimants’ own submission.
Second, is the case time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 prescribing 6 years as time of limitation for suits in contracts generally? The claimants’ submissions are that the respondent failed to comply with minutes of joint appeals committee of the meeting held on 26th and 27th September, 1994. The court finds that the cause of action as founded on the minutes is time barred under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the preliminary objection is upheld on the ground that the suit is time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22. The court has taken into account the circumstances of this case including that the respondent had not filed a substantive statement of response to oppose the suit and it is the view of the court that each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
In conclusion, the claimants’ suit is hereby dismissed with orders that each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
Signed, datedanddeliveredin court atNyerithisFriday, 13th May, 2016.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE