[2017] KEELRC 685 (KLR)
The court held that the Employment Act, 2007, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for employment claims, commenced on 2nd June 2008 and cannot operate retroactively. Since the cause of action arose in May 2008, prior to the commencement of the Employment Act, the applicable law on limitation is section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 685 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bernard Maina Kiama (suing on his behalf and on behalf of 42 others); Respondent: Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 992 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Redundancy, 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
Bernard Maina Kiama (suing on his behalf and on behalf of 42 others)
Applicant
Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the applicable limitation law is the Employment Act, 2007 or the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Employment Act, 2007, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for employment claims, commenced on 2nd June 2008 and cannot operate retroactively. Since the cause of action arose in May 2008, prior to the commencement of the Employment Act, the applicable law on limitation is section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, which allows for a six-year limitation period for actions founded on contract. The suit, having been filed on 20th January 2012, was within the six-year limitation period. Therefore, the preliminary objection by the respondent was misconceived and dismissed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 992 OF 2013
BERNARD MAINA KIAMA
(SUING ON HIS BEHALF AND
ON BEHALF OF 42 OTHERS) ………….……...........…….. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RIFT VALLEY RAILWAYS (K) LTD ….…................… RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to this suit on the basis that same offends section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 in that it was filed after three years from the date the cause of action arose.
2. From the plaint itself, it is evident that the cause of action arose in May 2008 when the petitioners stopped working upon being declared redundant with effect from 1st April 2008.
3. The plaint was filed on 20th January 2012 at the High Court.
4. The Employment Act, 2007, commenced operation on 2nd June 2008. It cannot operate retroactively with respect to this suit.
5. The law applicable to this matter on limitations is section 4 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 of the Laws of Kenya which reads;
“The following actions may not be brought after the end of six years from the date on which the cause of action occurred:
(a.)Actions founded on contract.”
6. It follows that this matter was filed within the limitation period. The preliminary objection is misconceived and is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 29th September, 2017
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE