[2014] KEHC 5601 (KLR)
The court found that the claim was filed more than nine years after the cause of action arose, well outside the six-year limitation period prescribed by Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act for actions founded in contract. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Divecon Ltd. v. Samani, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5601 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eunice Chebukwa Wanjala; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1150 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Wrongful Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Court
- 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
Eunice Chebukwa Wanjala
Applicant
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the employment claim filed over nine years after the cause of action arose.
- 3 Whether prior criminal proceedings or lack of pre-trial conciliation affect the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claim was filed more than nine years after the cause of action arose, well outside the six-year limitation period prescribed by Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act for actions founded in contract. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Divecon Ltd. v. Samani, which held that the limitation period is strict and the court has no discretion to extend it. The court further held that neither the absence of pre-trial conciliation nor the pendency or outcome of related criminal proceedings could operate to extend or waive the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction as it is time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1150 OF 2013
EUNICE CHEBUKWA WANJALA ............................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. ..................................... RESPONDENT
Mr. Dola Indidis for the Claimant/Applicant
Federation of Kenya Employers for the Respondent
RULING
1. The suit was filed on 22nd July 2013, via a memorandum of claim dated 19th July 2013.
The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent Bank from 25th May 1974 until the 12th June 2004 when he was dismissed from employment.
She states the dismissal was wrongful and unjustified and claims service pay for 30 years in the sum of 2,096,880/=; notice of termination in the sum of Kshs. 209,688; acting allowance in the sum of Kshs. 12,191,986 and compensation for unlawful dismissal.
2. The filing of the suit was not preceded by an application for grant of extension of time.
A preliminary objection was noted on 21st August 2013 stating that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit nor grant the relief sought because in terms of Section 4(1)of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 of Laws of Kenya, the same is time barred and the Court lacks discretion to enlarge the limitation period.
3. I have perused the various authorities of this Court and the High Court and in particular relying on the decision of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Divecon Ltd. Vs. Samani, [1995 - 1998] 1 EA 48 at 49 which found:
“the words of Section 4(1) were clear beyond any doubt and meant that no one had the right or power to bring an action founded in contract after the end of six years from the date on which the cause of action occurred.”
Find that this application has no merit as the suit was brought over nine (9) years since the cause of action arose.
4. That for the purpose of labour dispute, the pre-trial mandatory conciliation procedure under the erstwhile Trade Disputes Act, Cap 234 of the Laws of Kenya, which this Court has found to constitute commencement of the suit for purposes of limitation is not applicable in circumstances of this suit because none was embarked upon within the six (6) years period from the date the cause of action arose.
5. The fact that the Claimant faced criminal charges in Criminal Case No. 1114/2002 in which she was initially convicted and fined Kshs. 100,000/= or twenty four months imprisonment in the alternative but was acquitted upon appeal in Appeal No. 43 / 2002 on 21st February 2013 does not constitute a waiver of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act which governed Employment matters prior to the enactment of the Employment Act No. 11 of 2007.
6. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the same is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of April, 2014.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE