[2019] KEELRC 451 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 451 (KLR)

The court held that the effective date for the commencement of the limitation period is when the claimant actually received the letter of summary dismissal, not the date it was written. The evidence showed the letter was posted from Nairobi to Kilifi and could not have been received on the same day it was written....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 451 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Billy Omondi Nyaare; Respondent: National Environment Management Authority
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 63 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period
Outcome
preliminary objection declined
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Summary Dismissal, Notice of Termination, Unfair Termination, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation Periods Summary Dismissal Notice of Termination Unfair Termination 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Billy Omondi Nyaare

Claimant

National Environment Management Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the cause of action arose on the date of the dismissal letter or the date the claimant received the letter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the effective date for the commencement of the limitation period is when the claimant actually received the letter of summary dismissal, not the date it was written. The evidence showed the letter was posted from Nairobi to Kilifi and could not have been received on the same day it was written. The claimant's assertion that he received the letter on 10th November 2014 was corroborated by his letter of appeal written on the same day. The respondent failed to prove the letter was received earlier. Therefore, the claim, filed on 9th November 2017, was within the statutory three-year limitation period. The preliminary objection was declined.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection declined

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is declined.
  • No order as to costs.