[2019] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)
The court found that the suit was filed outside the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act. The Claimants admitted the delay but attributed it to the Respondent's conduct during negotiations and conciliation. However, the court held that time does not stop running during...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Grace Wambui Wahome; Claimant: Julius Mahindu Mwangi; Respondent: B.O.M Dr. Kamundia Secondary School
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 255 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim dismissed as time-barred
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction of Court, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Employment Disputes
- 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
Grace Wambui Wahome
Claimant
Julius Mahindu Mwangi
Claimant
B.O.M Dr. Kamundia Secondary School
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit was filed outside the statutory limitation period under the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred employment claim.
- 3 Whether time stops running during conciliation or alternative dispute resolution processes.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit was filed outside the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act. The Claimants admitted the delay but attributed it to the Respondent's conduct during negotiations and conciliation. However, the court held that time does not stop running during conciliation or alternative dispute resolution processes, as established in relevant case law. Consequently, the claim was deemed time-barred, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The claim was dismissed as stale, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed as time-barred
Orders
- The claim is dismissed as time-barred.
- There will be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CASE NO. 255 OF 2018
1. GRACE WAMBUI WAHOME
2. JULIUS MAHINDU MWANGI............................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
B.O.M DR. KAMUNDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. A preliminary objection was taken by the Respondent who had been sued for various reliefs by the 2 Claimants. The Respondent argues that the court therefore lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine the matter before it. The Claimants are opposed and parties opted to argue the preliminary objection through submissions. The Respondent relied on the case of Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vWest End Distributors [1969] EA 696 and submitted that the objection was merited as the Claimants filed the suit outside the prescribed limit. It relied on the provisions of Section 90 of the Employment Act. The case of Attorney General &Another vAndrew Maina Githinji &Another [2016] eKLRwhere the Court of Appeal held that suits filed outside the limitation period cannot be upheld was relied on. The Respondent submitted that this position was reiterated in the Court of Appeal in the case of G4S Security Services (K) Limited vJoseph Kamau &488 Others [2018] eKLR. The Respondent submitted that time does not stop running during conciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The case of Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd vHawkins Wagunza Musonye &Another [2016] eKLRwas cited for the foregoing proposition and the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the claim that was time barred.
2. The Claimants admitted that the suit was filed out of time due to the dilatoriness of the Respondent in negotiations and conciliation. The Claimants submitted that the Respondent should not benefit from their own action which caused the matter to drag on by promising to pay but failing to do so. The Claimants thus submitted that they even tried alternative dispute resolution (ADR) meeting a State Counsel at the behest of the Principal of the Respondent in an attempt to finalize the matter through negotiation and settlement.
3. It is moot to reiterate the findings in Mukisa Biscuit (supra) or the provisions of Section 90. The law clearly stipulates that there is a time limit within which to file a claim for the relief the Claimants seek. They readily admit the suit was time barred and blame the Respondent for the delay. As held in the case of Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd vHawkins Wagunza Musonye &Another(supra), time did not stop running even when the matter went to conciliation or underwent the alternative dispute resolution mechanism involving the State Counsel. As the claim is time barred, it is stale and must of necessity be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 23rd day of January 2019
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR