[2018] KEELRC 1077 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1077 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant was dismissed from service with effect from 28th October 1985, and that his subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Public Service Commission by 9th March 2000. The claimant did not file his claim until 2014, well beyond the six-year limitation period for actions founded on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1077 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: James Andrew Wandera Kafwa; Respondent: Public Service Commission; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1437 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed as time barred
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Limitation Periods, Public Service Employment, Disability Rights, Pension Entitlement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Limitation Periods Public Service Employment Disability Rights Pension Entitlement

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Andrew Wandera Kafwa

Claimant

Public Service Commission

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act and Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's services were terminated lawfully.
  3. 3 What remedies, if any, the claimant is entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was dismissed from service with effect from 28th October 1985, and that his subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Public Service Commission by 9th March 2000. The claimant did not file his claim until 2014, well beyond the six-year limitation period for actions founded on contract as stipulated by the Limitation of Actions Act. The court held that it has no power to extend the limitation period, and that the claim, being a pure employment dispute and not a constitutional petition, is time barred. Consequently, the claim was dismissed without consideration of the merits of the alleged unfair dismissal or entitlement to remedies.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed as time barred

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed as time barred.
  • No order as to costs.