[2018] KEELRC 258 (KLR)
The court found that the claim was filed more than 52 years after the alleged underpayments began and over 22 years after the pension underpayment claim arose. Under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, any contractual claim must be brought within six years. The claimant did not seek leave to file out of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 258 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Edwin Mubinya Murema; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General on behalf of the Republic of Kenya; Respondent: Inspector General National Police Services; Respondent: The Director of Pensions, Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 78 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Pension Entitlements, Public Service Employment, Jurisdiction, Contractual Claims
- 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
Edwin Mubinya Murema
Claimant
The Hon. Attorney General on behalf of the Republic of Kenya
Respondent
Inspector General National Police Services
Respondent
The Director of Pensions, Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim for underpayment of salary and pension is statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim filed outside the statutory limitation period without leave.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment for the period worked in Uganda and correct calculation of pension dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claim was filed more than 52 years after the alleged underpayments began and over 22 years after the pension underpayment claim arose. Under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, any contractual claim must be brought within six years. The claimant did not seek leave to file out of time, nor did he provide any reason for the delay. The court, following binding precedent, held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as no extension of time is permissible for contractual claims after the statutory period lapses. Consequently, the suit was struck out at the outset for want of jurisdiction, and no determination on the merits was made.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 78 OF 2016
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
EDWIN MUBINYA MUREMA ......................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF
OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA.......................................................1ST RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL POLICE SERVICES.........2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF PENSIONS, KENYA .....................................3RD RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The suit was filed on 29th March, 2016. The claimant seeks payment in respect of –
a. Underpayments for 35 years in the sum of Kshs.567,420.
b. An order for payment of the correct monthly pension per month taking into account the period worked in Uganda.
c. An order for correct calculation of the Claimant’s dues as at the time of retirement and refund of under payments.
d. Interest and costs.
2. The Claimant testified under oath to the effect that he was a retired police officer having joined the police force on 28th February, 1959 to 1st July, 1994. That he performed his duties diligently for 35 years, 4 months and 3 days until when he honorably retired.
3. That during that period he worked for both Uganda Government and Kenyan Government. That Kenyan Government got him out of Uganda Government on transfer basis. That Kenyan Government failed to pay him for the period worked in Uganda between the years 28th February, 1959 to 14th January 1964, a period of 4 years, 10 months and 14 days. He seeks payment of terminal benefits for that specific period. He further states that Kenyan Government underpaid him for the period worked between 15th April 1964 to 1st July 1999, a total of 30 years, 5 months and 19 days.
4. The Claimant received lump sum pension of Kshs.338,940 on 28th April 1994 and a further Kshs.160,000 on 26th July, 1994. He states there was gross underpayment as the services offered to Uganda Government were overlooked and not taken into account.
5. The Claimant states that in many correspondence with Government of Kenya the Government admitted 100% liability and agreed to pay all pension dues with effect from 28th February, 1959 to 1st July, 1994.
6. The Respondent filed a reply to statement of claim in which it denied any liability in respect of underpayments of salary for 35 years and underpayment of pension dues. The Government admits however particulars of employment of the Claimant in both Kenya and Uganda. The Respondent did not call any witness to rebut the claim by the Claimant.
7. The court has on its own motion noted that the claim was filed more than 52 years from when the claim for under payments by Kenyan Government arose between 15th April 1964 to 1st July, 1994 and more than 22 years from when the claim for underpayment of pension dues arose.
8. In terms of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya, any claim arising from a contract must be filed in court before expiring of six (6) years from the date the course of action arose. This suit was filed without first seeking leave of court to file the suit out of time.
9. This court has consistently followed the decision by the Court of Appeal in Devicon case to the effect that no extension of time to file a suit based on contract may be granted upon expiry of six (6) years period regardless of the reason for the delay. No reason has been advanced in any event for the delay in filing the suit.
10. It is the court’s finding that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit and strikes out the entire suit at the outset.
11. A determination on the merits of the case is therefore unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.
12. The final effect of the above finding by the court is that the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs
Dated, Delivered and Signed in Kisumu this 20th day of December, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Nyaga for Claimant/Applicant
Mr. Q for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk