[2016] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act and section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act do not provide for extension of time to bring actions based on contracts. The statutory language is clear that no civil action or proceedings arising out of the Employment Act or a contract of service shall be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Miigu Kariuki; Respondent: Toyota K. Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 58 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Extension of Time, Employment Termination, Employment Act Section 90
- 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
Edward Miigu Kariuki
Applicant
Toyota K. Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can enlarge time to allow filing of a claim under the Employment Act after the limitation period has lapsed.
- 2 Whether section 90 of the Employment Act or section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act permits extension of time for actions based on contract.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act and section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act do not provide for extension of time to bring actions based on contracts. The statutory language is clear that no civil action or proceedings arising out of the Employment Act or a contract of service shall be instituted unless commenced within three years after the act, neglect or default complained of. Unlike actions based on tort, for which section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act allows for extension of time in certain circumstances, there is no such provision for contract-based claims. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to enlarge time for filing a claim under the Employment...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for enlargement of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPL. NUMBER 58 OF 2015
EDWARD MIIGU KARIUKI……………………..………….…….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TOYOTA K. LIMITED…………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By an application dated 18th June, 2015 the applicant seeks enlargement of time to file a claim against the respondent. The application is brought on the main ground that upon termination of the proposed claimant’s services he was prosecuted and the criminal trial took a long time to conclude. Upon conclusion, the period limited for filing a suit had lapsed.
2. Section 90 of the Employment Act provides as follows:-
“…Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Action 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 a continuing injury or damage, within twelve months next after the cessation thereof.”
3. Section 4 (1) of the Limitation of Action Act lists actions which may be brought prior to expiry of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Section 4(2) of the said Act however provides that actions based on tort may not be brought after expiry of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
4. However, under section 27 of the Act, actions based on tort may be brought after the expiry of three years provided the Court has granted leave to do so prior to or after the commencement of the action.
5. Section 90 of the Employment Act referred to above, as well as section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act do not provide for extension of time to bring actions based on contracts. This therefore means no extention of time is permissible for these actions once limitation has elapsed. To this extent this application cannot be granted hence stands dismissed with costs.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 13th day of May 2016
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
Delivered this 13th day of May 2016
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge