[2017] KEELRC 256 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's cause of action arose on 20th March 2012, when her appointment was nullified. The claim was filed on 28th January 2016, nearly a year after the three-year limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 had expired. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hellen Mauta Mutinda; Respondent: County Government of Machakos; Respondent: Public Service Commission
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 73 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period
- Outcome
- suit struck out as statute barred
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Employment Contracts, Jurisdiction of Court
- 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
Hellen Mauta Mutinda
Applicant
County Government of Machakos
Respondent
Public Service Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Limitation Period
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend the limitation period for employment claims.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's cause of action arose on 20th March 2012, when her appointment was nullified. The claim was filed on 28th January 2016, nearly a year after the three-year limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 had expired. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim or extend the limitation period, as the statute provides no such discretion. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld, and the suit was struck out as statute barred.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The suit is struck out as statute barred.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 73 OF 2016
HELLEN MAUTA MUTINDA....................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MACHAKOS.............1ST RESPONDENT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION...........................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a notice of preliminary objection filed on 15th March 2016, the 1st respdont contended that the court should not entertain this suit as the same was time barred as per Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
2. An objection as to limitation of action goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Under Section 90 of the Employment Act, the court is denied jurisdiction to entertain any matter which is brought past three years after the accrual of the cause of action and in case continuing injuries twelve months after cessation thereof. The Act does not make provision for extension of time once the three year period set for filing actions based on the Act or contract of employment generally has lapsed. It therefore means the court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time once it has lapsed.
3. Computation of limitation period is generally arithmetic. It can only become a matter of circumstantial and factual analysis if it can be established that there were mandatory procedural steps beyond his control that the potential claimant had to go through before commencement of the suit. For instance if the dispute was refereed to conciliation by the minister, the potential claimant must await the outcome thereof and that is beyond his control. Time cannot therefore be said to run during the pendency of the outcome of conciliation process.
4. In the matter before me the claimant’s appointment was nullified on 20th March 2012 and encouraged to apply afresh once the 1st respondent advertise for the recruitment exercise. There is nothing on record to show the claimant disputed the annulment of the contract. This therefore means the cause of action against the respondent occurred on 20th March 2012 (the date of the letter).
5. The claim herein therefore ought to have been filed by 20th March 2015. It was however filed on 28th January 2016, almost a year after the lapse of the limitation period. The claim is therefore statute barred and as stated above, the court has no jurisdiction to extend the limitation period once it has lapsed.
6. The preliminary objection is therefore upheld with the consequence that the suit is herby struck out but with no order as to costs.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 1st day of December 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 1st day of December 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of:-
…………………………………………...…… for the claimant
……………………………………………. for the Respondent
Abuodha J. N.
Judge