[2016] KEELRC 106 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's suit was filed almost ten years after the cause of action arose, whereas the Limitation of Actions Act prescribes a limitation period of six years for contract claims and three years for tort claims. Since the suit was commenced well outside these statutory periods, the court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 106 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Boniface Inondi Otieno; Respondent: Mehta Electricals Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 620 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection allowed; suit struck out for being statute barred.
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction, 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
Boniface Inondi Otieno
Claimant
Mehta Electricals Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's suit was filed almost ten years after the cause of action arose, whereas the Limitation of Actions Act prescribes a limitation period of six years for contract claims and three years for tort claims. Since the suit was commenced well outside these statutory periods, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and struck out the suit as statute barred, without considering the issue of res judicata.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection allowed; suit struck out for being statute barred.
Orders
- The suit is struck out for being statute barred.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO 620 OF 2016
BONIFACE INONDI OTIENO………………………………...CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MEHTA ELECTRICALS LTD……………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. The claimant brought this suit on 22. 8.2016 claiming compensation and terminal dues arising from his unlawful, inhumane and wrongful termination of his employment contract by the respondent on 18. 10. 2006 at Juba Southern Sudan. He also claims damages for loss of capacity to continue earning due to injuries suffered while on duty.
2. The respondent has filed defence and the Notice of Preliminary Objection (P.O) dated 16. 9.2016 challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the suit because the suit is statute barred and it is res judicata with respect to Civil Misc.Appl No.2 of 2013 and ICC No. 290 of 2013.
3. The Preliminary Objection was argued on 14. 10. 2016 by Mr. Stonik learned counsel for the respondent and the claimant acting in person.Analysis and Determination
4. The issue for determination herein is whether the suit is statute barred and whether it is also resjudicata.
Statute barred suit
5. There is no dispute that the cause of action arose on 18. 10. 2006 and that the suit was filed on 22. 8.2016 almost Ten years next after the time when the cause of action arose. There is also no dispute that the cause of action was governed by the Limitation of Actions Act with respect to limitation of time. Under section 4(1) (a) of the Act no action founded on contract may be brought unless it is commenced with 6 years next from the time when the cause of action. Likewise under section 4 (2) of the said Act, no action founded on tort may be brought unless it is commenced within 3 years next from the date when the cause of action arose.
6. In view of the foregoing clear provision of the law, it is obvious that the claimant’s case which is founded on both contract and tort is time barred because it was commenced 10 years after the respective cause of action arose. The court is therefore barred by the Law from entertaining this suit and therefore I down my tools for lack of jurisdiction. I will not even spend any efforts trying to answer the second question whether or not the suit is res judicata.
Disposition
7. For the reasons stated above the Preliminary Objection is allowed and the suit is struck out with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Mombasa this 25th November 2016
O.N. MAKAU
JUDGE