[2016] KEELRC 698 (KLR)
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act is the relevant provision governing limitation periods for employment-related claims. This section mandates that any civil action or proceedings arising out of the Act or a contract of service must be instituted within three years of the act, neglect, or default...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 698 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dominic Mulinge Mutei; Respondent: Kakuzi Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 52 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Extension of Time, 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
Dominic Mulinge Mutei
Applicant
Kakuzi Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing a suit under the Employment Act after the limitation period has lapsed.
- 2 Whether section 7 and 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act apply to employment claims.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act is the relevant provision governing limitation periods for employment-related claims. This section mandates that any civil action or proceedings arising out of the Act or a contract of service must be instituted within three years of the act, neglect, or default complained of, or within twelve months of cessation in the case of continuing injury. The court found that section 90 does not provide for extension of time beyond the stipulated period. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to file a suit outside the limitation period, and the application for extension of time must fail.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
MISC. 52 OF 2016
DOMINIC MULINGE MUTEI……………………………………..CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KAKUZI LIMITED………………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant herein seeks leave of this Court to extend time to enable him file a suit against the Respondent. The application was brought under section 7 and 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. These provisions do not apply to application of this nature, if tenable before this Court. The relevant section would be section 90 of the Employment Act.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4(1) of the Limitations 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 or in the case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after the cessation thereof.
3. This section does not seem to permit extension of time to bring actions founded on the Act or contract of employment after the 3 year period has lapsed or in the case of continuing injury, after 12 months from cessation thereof.
4. Regretfully therefore the application fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order for costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 23rd day of September 2016
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
Delivered this 23rd day of September 2016
In the presence of:-
…………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge