[2016] KEELRC 931 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 931 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicants failed to provide any proof of fraud or misrepresentation by the Respondent, beyond their general assertions. As Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act requires proof of fraud or mistake to justify extension of time, and such proof was lacking, the court held that it lacked...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 931 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elidah Awinja Onguche; Applicant: Paul Otiede; Respondent: International Livestock Research Institute
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Occupational Disease Claims, Extension of Time
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Tort Law Limitation of Actions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Occupational Disease Claims Extension of Time

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elidah Awinja Onguche

Applicant

Paul Otiede

Applicant

International Livestock Research Institute

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants are entitled to extension of time to file suit against the Respondent out of time under Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants established fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to invoke Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants failed to provide any proof of fraud or misrepresentation by the Respondent, beyond their general assertions. As Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act requires proof of fraud or mistake to justify extension of time, and such proof was lacking, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Consequently, the application for enlargement of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.