[2018] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)
The court held that the limitation period for filing employment claims under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, begins to run from the date of dismissal, not from the date of determination of any internal appeal. The Claimant was dismissed on 18th November 2011 and should have filed suit by 18th November 2014....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Francis Maina Wahome; Respondent: The Managing Director Nyeri Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 424 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation of Action
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; suit struck out as time-barred
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Termination, 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
Francis Maina Wahome
Claimant
The Managing Director Nyeri Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation of Action
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether time for filing suit runs from the date of dismissal or from the date of determination of an internal appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the limitation period for filing employment claims under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, begins to run from the date of dismissal, not from the date of determination of any internal appeal. The Claimant was dismissed on 18th November 2011 and should have filed suit by 18th November 2014. Filing the suit in 2017 was therefore outside the statutory limitation period. The court distinguished the authority relied upon by the Claimant, noting that in that case the claim was filed within a year of dismissal, unlike the present case. The court emphasized that the statutory limitation is peremptory and must be strictly applied to protect both employers and employees...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; suit struck out as time-barred
Orders
- The suit is struck out for being filed outside the limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 424 OF 2017
FRANCIS MAINA WAHOME......................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NYERI WATER &SEWERAGE CO. LTD....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The preliminary objection by the Respondent is that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s claims on the grounds that the claims are barred by limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007. The Claimant filed a reply to the preliminary objection and stated that there was an appeal filed against the dismissal of the Claimant in 2016 and that the provisions of Section 8 of the Employment Act cannot stand as time started to run after the act of appeal against the Respondents.
2. The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was dismissed on 18th November 2011 and therefore this suit could not be entertained due to limitation in terms of section 90 of the Employment Act. The Claimant is opposed and submits that the decision to dismiss him was only affirmed after his appeal which he lodged upon dismissal. He stated that determination of the appeal was made in 5th December 2016. The Claimant asserts that the appeal was closed in December 2016 when the decision on the dismissal was confirmed and therefore the only option then was present the legal process for the court to determine. The Claimant relied on the case of is Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa vThe Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute [2016] eKLR where Rika J. held “the claim was filed on 28th June 2013, less than a year after the claimant learnt of his termination. The claim was therefore filed in time. Whether one considers the time limits in the Limitation of Actions Act or the Employment Act 2007, the preliminary objection is declined.” He urged the court therefore dismiss the preliminary objection with costs to the Claimant.
3. On limitation, I think that all is clear in order for party to fall within the time limit prescribed under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 one must file the suit within three years of the dismissal. The case of Ezekiel Okemwa vKenya Marine Fisheries Institute (supra) is distinguishable from the case before me. In that case Rika J. was dealing with a dismissal that had occurred one year before the suit was filed. The Court of Appeal in various decisions on the subject has made a determination that is binding on this court regarding limitation. In the case of Attorney General & Another v Andrew Maina Githinji & Another [2016] eKLRthe Court of Appeal stated the following about limitation of time per Waki J.
By expressly inserting Section 90, the intention of Parliament , in my view, at least in part, must have been to protect both the employer and the employee from irredeemable prejudice if they have to meet claims and counter claims made long after the cause of action had arisen when memories have faded, documents lost, witnesses dead or untraceable. It is understandable therefore when the Section peremptorily limits actions by the use of the word ‘shall’.
4. In view of the foregoing it is amply clear that since the Claimant was dismissed on 18th November 2011, he should have filed suit on or before 18th November 2014 as time began running on the date he was dismissed and not from the date his appeal was confirmed. This suit is therefore hopelessly out of time having been filed in 2017 about 6 years from date of accrual of the cause of action. The only option available to this court is to hold that it must be struck out. The preliminary objection succeeds and I strike out the suit with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 9th day of April 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE