[2021] KEELRC 1937 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant was dismissed on 8 October 2009 but filed the claim on 17 September 2014, well outside the three-year limitation period set by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court held that it has no jurisdiction to extend time or grant leave to file a contract-based employment claim...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 1937 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: George Ochieng Onyango; Respondent: Chemelil Sugar Co. Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 207 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Unfair Termination, Employment Contracts
- 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
George Ochieng Onyango
Claimant
Chemelil Sugar Co. Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim was filed within the statutory limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time or grant leave to file a contract-based employment claim out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant was dismissed on 8 October 2009 but filed the claim on 17 September 2014, well outside the three-year limitation period set by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The court held that it has no jurisdiction to extend time or grant leave to file a contract-based employment claim out of time, as established in Divecon v Samani. Consequently, the claim was statute-barred and had to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The cause is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The orders herein apply to Kisumu Cause Nos. 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, and 215 of 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 207 OF 2014
GEORGE OCHIENG ONYANGO.................CLAIMANT
V
CHEMELIL SUGAR CO. LIMITED ......RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. George Ochieng Onyango (the Claimant) instituted legal proceedings against Chemelil Sugar Co. Ltd (the Respondent) on 17 September 2014, alleging unfair termination of employment.
2. The Respondent filed a Statement of Response on 13 October 2014 in which one of the defences raised was that the cause of action was caught up by the law of limitation.
3. The Claimant filed an Amended Statement of Claim on 6 November 2017 after securing leave of the Court, and this prompted the Respondent to file an Amended Statement of Defence on 14 November 2017.
4. The hearing of the Cause commenced on 15 May 2018 and proceeded on 11 July 2018 and 4 December 2018.
5. When the hearing resumed on 10 December 2020, the Respondent opted to close its case without calling other witnesses it had intended to call.
6. Considering that limitation had been raised, the Court directed the parties to file and exchange submissions, specifically addressing the Issue.
7. The Respondent filed its submissions on 4 January 2021, while the Claimant’s submissions were not on record by the agreed timeline of 10 February 2021.
8. The Court has considered the record and the submissions.
9. It is not disputed that the Claimant was dismissed on 8 October 2009 and that the Cause was filed on 17 September 2014.
10. By dint of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, the Claimant should have filed action within 3-years, that is, on or before 8 October 2012. The action was brought outside the prescribed time.
11. The cause of action advanced by the Claimant was based on contract and therefore, even assuming that he would have sought leave to file suit out of time, that would not have been successful since the Court has no power to grant leave or extend time in actions based on contract, see Divecon v Samani (1995 -1998) EA 48 where the Court of Appeal stated
to us, the meaning of the wording of section 4(1) ……is clear beyond any doubt. It means that no one shall have the right or power to bring after the end of six years from the date on which a cause of action accrued, an action founded on contract. The corollary to this is that no court may or shall have the right or power to entertain what cannot be done, namely, an action that is brought in contract six years after the cause of action arose or any application to extend such time for the bringing of the action……A perusal of Part III shows that its provisions do not apply to actions based on contract. In light of these clear statutory provisions, it would be unacceptable to imply as the learned Judge of the Superior Court did, that ‘‘the wording of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Chapter 22) suggests a discretion that can be invoked (my emphasis).
12. The principle that the Court has no such power extends to contracts of service, and the Court has no option but to down its pen.
13. The Cause is dismissed with costs.
14. Since the Court directed on 15 May 2018 that this Cause would serve as a test suit, the orders herein will apply in
i. Kisumu Cause No. 206 of 2014, Peter Dan Oruko v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
ii.Kisumu Cause No. 208 of 2014, Maurice Othech Ochomo v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
iii. Kisumu Cause No. 209 of 2014, Aloice Otiieno Arum v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
iv. Kisumu Cause No. 210 of 2014, Paul Odhiambo Orita v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
v. Kisumu Cause No. 211 of 2014, Charles Onyango Ooro v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
vi. Kisumu Cause No. 212 of 2014, Shem Onyango Ogwang v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
vii.Kisumu Cause No. 213 of 2014, Thomas Owino Omollo v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd.
viii. Kisumu Cause No. 214 of 2014, Jacton Odhiambo Achola v Chemelil Sugar Co Ltd and
iv. Kisumu Cause No. 215 of 2014, Japheth Kwama Ogilo v Chemelil Sugar Cl Ltd.
DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021
RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARB
JUDGE
Appearances
For Claimant Ken Omollo & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Amos O. Oyuko & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Chrispo Aura