[2019] KEELRC 521 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 521 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's cause of action accrued on 8th October 2010, the date of his dismissal. Under section 90 of the Employment Act, he was required to file any claim arising from his employment within three years, that is, by 9th October 2013. The claim was instead filed on 7th March 2018, more than...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 521 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Herbert Muchelule; Respondent: Senaca East Africa Limited formerly Sentry & Patrol Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 274 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Outcome
claim struck out as statute barred
Judges
NJ Abuodha, DI Wasike
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Unlawful Termination, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation Periods Unlawful Termination Employment Contracts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert Muchelule

Claimant

Senaca East Africa Limited formerly Sentry & Patrol Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Preliminary Objection Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim filed outside the statutory limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's cause of action accrued on 8th October 2010, the date of his dismissal. Under section 90 of the Employment Act, he was required to file any claim arising from his employment within three years, that is, by 9th October 2013. The claim was instead filed on 7th March 2018, more than five years after the expiry of the statutory limitation period. The court held that the limitation period is strict and cannot be extended, and therefore the claim was incompetent for being time-barred. Consequently, the court struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

claim struck out as statute barred

Orders

  • The claim is struck out for being statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act.
  • No order as to costs.