[2018] KEHC 706 (KLR)
The court held that the application for enlargement of time to file a suit based on an employment contract, where the cause of action arose approximately twenty years prior, is not permissible under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22. The statutory limitation period for such claims was six years,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 706 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gibson Akaranga Kidula; Respondent: The Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Water & Natural Resources
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Enlargement of Time, 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
Gibson Akaranga Kidula
Applicant
The Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Water & Natural Resources
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can enlarge time to allow filing of a suit based on an employment contract after the statutory limitation period has lapsed.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for enlargement of time to file a suit based on an employment contract, where the cause of action arose approximately twenty years prior, is not permissible under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22. The statutory limitation period for such claims was six years, and the Court of Appeal in the Devicon Case established that courts have no jurisdiction to enlarge time for contract-based claims. The applicant failed to provide any plausible reason for the inordinate delay, and the law does not allow for extension in such circumstances. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for enlargement of time is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2017
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
GIBSON AKARANGA KIDULA.........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRYOF WATER & NATURAL RESOURCES...................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant seeks enlargement of time for filing suit against the Attorney General.
2. The cause of action arose in 1998 when the Claimant voluntarily retired from government service. The Claimant seeks payment of Kshs.239,625 being the balance of the exit package he was entitled to. At the time the cause of action arose, limitation of time of matters based on employment contract was governed by section 4(1) of Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya.
3. The Court of Appeal in the Devicon Case, which decision has been followed strictly by the court found that enlargement of time for a suit based on contract was not permissible at all. The limitation period was six (6) years then.
4. The Applicant wants to file the claim about twenty (20) years’ from the date the cause of action arose.
5. The application is simply not permissible regardless of the cause of the inordinate delay. No plausible reason has been advanced in any event in this application.
6. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 6th day of December, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Momanyi & Co. advocates for the Applicant
Chrispo – Court Clerk