[2018] KEELRC 395 (KLR)
The court found that the cause of action arose on 13th June 2002, and the applicable law was Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which requires contractual claims to be filed within six years. Since the claim was filed on 17th August 2016, more than 14 years after the cause of action arose, it was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 395 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Gilbert Wachilonga Wanyonyi; Respondent: The Principal, Kuywa Girls High School; Respondent: The Chairman, Board of Management, Kuywa Girls High School
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 240 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim struck out as time-barred
- Judges
- DO Ogal, MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Gilbert Wachilonga Wanyonyi
Claimant
The Principal, Kuywa Girls High School
Respondent
The Chairman, Board of Management, Kuywa Girls High School
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under the applicable limitation statute.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim filed outside the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the cause of action arose on 13th June 2002, and the applicable law was Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which requires contractual claims to be filed within six years. Since the claim was filed on 17th August 2016, more than 14 years after the cause of action arose, it was time-barred. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and the preliminary objection was upheld. The claim was struck out as being bad in law.
Court Disposition
claim struck out as time-barred
Orders
- The claim herein is struck out.
- There shall be no orders for costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 240 OF 2016
(Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango)
GILBERT WACHILONGA WANYONYI............CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE PRINCIPAL,
KUYWA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL..............1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
KUYWA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL..............2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
By notice of preliminary objection dated 21st September 2016 and filed on 23rd September 2016 the respondent prays that the claim herein be struck out and or be dismissed with costs on grounds –
1. That the claimant’s claim is fatally defective, incompetent, and untenable as it offends the provision of Employment Act both repealed and present.
2. That the claimant’s claims is statutorily time barred and should be struck out and/or dismissed with costs.
The respondent submits in support of the preliminary objection that the cause of action arose on 22nd day of July 2002 being the date of the claimant’s letter of termination, that according to the provisions of Section 90 of the Employment Act, the claimant ought to have filed his claim by 22nd July 2005 and any claim filed after that date is “dead on arrival” and is unsustainable. It is the respondent’s submission that Section 90 is very clear and precise.
The claimant opted not to file any submissions on the preliminary objection.
Determination
The claim herein was filed on 17th August 2016. Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the claim the claimant pleads as follows –
“The 1st and 2nd respondents retained and/or employed the claimant in September 1992 but confirmed on the 7th August 1993 one year later as an Accounts Clerk on a permanent basis.
The claimant served the respondents with loyalty until 13th June 2002 when the respondents purported to suspend him from service on allegation of irregularity and indicators of fraud when writing receipts.”
The cause of action in the claim having arisen on 13th June 2002 the applicable law is not the Employment Act, 2007 but Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act in so far as an employment relationship is a contract.
The said section provides that claims in contract must be commenced within six years from the date on which the cause of action arises.
The cause of action herein having arisen on 13th June 2002, the claim should have been filed on or before 13th June 2008. It was filed on 17th August 2016, more than 14 years after the cause of action arose.
The claim is thus bad in law and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same with the result that the preliminary objection succeeds and is upheld. Consequently, the claim herein is struck out.
There shall be no orders for costs.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU ON THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
JUDGE