[2018] KEELRC 168 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 168 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants' suit was based on contracts of employment entered into between 24 and 49 years before the suit was filed. Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars the filing of suits based on contract after six years from the date the cause of action arose. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 168 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Amoth and 14 Others; Respondent: Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 399 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (limitation of Action)
Outcome
suit struck out as time-barred
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Casual Employment, Unlawful Termination, Constitutional Rights in Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation of Actions Casual Employment Unlawful Termination Constitutional Rights in Employment

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

George Amoth and 14 Others

Plaintiff

Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (limitation of Action)

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' suit is time-barred under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' engagement as casuals violated their constitutional rights.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to damages for alleged unlawful and unconstitutional engagement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants' suit was based on contracts of employment entered into between 24 and 49 years before the suit was filed. Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars the filing of suits based on contract after six years from the date the cause of action arose. The court held that the claimants' attempt to frame the matter as a constitutional claim was an unsuccessful effort to avoid the statutory limitation period. No application for leave to file out of time was made, and even if it had been, the court would not have granted it in light of binding appellate authority. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was struck out as...

Court Disposition

suit struck out as time-barred

Orders

  • The suit is struck out for being time-barred.
  • The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim.