[2015] KEELRC 893 (KLR)
Regardless of whether the claimant resigned in 2006 or was dismissed in 2009, the suit was filed on 5 November 2014, which is outside the limitation periods prescribed by both the Limitation of Actions Act and the Employment Act 2007. The right to sue expired in 2012 under either scenario. Consequently, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 893 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Gerald Ngumbao Kiyama; Respondent: Sala Terrena Co. Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 614 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (limitation of Action)
- Outcome
- Suit struck out for being time barred. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction, Striking Out Suit
- 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
Gerald Ngumbao Kiyama
Claimant
Sala Terrena Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (limitation of Action)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the applicable limitation statutes.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed outside the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
Regardless of whether the claimant resigned in 2006 or was dismissed in 2009, the suit was filed on 5 November 2014, which is outside the limitation periods prescribed by both the Limitation of Actions Act and the Employment Act 2007. The right to sue expired in 2012 under either scenario. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the suit must be struck out for being time barred.
Court Disposition
Suit struck out for being time barred. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 20.3.2015 is allowed.
- The suit is struck out for being time barred.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. 614 OF 2011
GERALD NGUMBAO KIYAMA.......…................................................... CLAIMANT
VERSUS
SALA TERRENA CO. LTD................................................................. RESPONDENT
RULING
INTRODUCTION
1. The Respondent has filed the Notice of Motion dated 20. 3.2015 seeking to have the suit herein struck out with costs for being time barred. The motion is supported by the affidavit sworn by Christina Harris on 20. 3.2015. The gist of the motion is that the Claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment in 2006 and filed this suit on 5. 11. 2014. The time taken, by the Claimant to file the suit according to the respondent was 7 years instead of the 3 years provided for under the law.
2. The Motion was not in any manner opposed by the Claimant even after service. The court was therefore left to consider the motion and the pleading filed by both parties.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
3. The only issue for determination in the motion is whether the suit before the court is time barred. There is no dispute that the suit was filed on 5. 11. 2014 although the termination date and the manner of the termination is in dispute. On the one had the respondent contends that the Claimant resigned in 2006 while on the other hand the Claimant avers that he was wrongly dismissed by the respondent in 2009.
4. Whichever way one looks at the matter, the suit is time barred and it should be struck out. Firstly, if the Claimant resigned in 2006 as averred by the respondent, the law applicable to the cause of action was the Limitation of Action Act section 4 which limited the right to sue under a contract to 6 years. In that case the right to sue expired after 2012. On the other hand, if indeed the Claimant was dismissed in 2009 as he avers, the law applicable to his cause of action is section 90 of the Employment Act 2007 which limits the right to sue to only 3 years. In that second case, the claim expired after 2012.
5. Regrettably therefore the court finds that the suit herein having been filed on 5. 11. 2014, is time barred and the court must now down its tools for want of jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
6. For the reasons stated above the Notice of Motion dated 20. 3.2015 is allowed and the suit herein struck out. No order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered this 19th day of June 2015.
O. N. Makau
Judge