[2014] KEELRC 204 (KLR)
The court held that the claim was filed outside the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, as the claimant was terminated in September 2009 and filed suit on 29th November 2012. The court found that no leave to extend the limitation period was sought or obtained, and that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 204 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Jared Mien Mayi; Respondent: G4S Security Services (K) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2418 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; suit struck out as statute barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Unlawful Termination, 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
Jared Mien Mayi
Claimant
G4S Security Services (K) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a claim filed outside the statutory limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act can be extended in employment claims.
- 3 Whether the claimant's acquittal in a related criminal case affects the limitation period for filing an employment claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claim was filed outside the three-year limitation period prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act, as the claimant was terminated in September 2009 and filed suit on 29th November 2012. The court found that no leave to extend the limitation period was sought or obtained, and that section 90 does not permit extension of time for employment claims. The claimant's argument that he was awaiting the outcome of a criminal prosecution was rejected, as the employment relationship ended upon termination and the criminal process was irrelevant to the limitation period. The court therefore upheld the respondent's preliminary objection, declared the suit incompetent, and...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; suit struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The suit is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 2418 OF 2012
BETWEEN
JARED MIEN MAYI……………………………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
G4S SECURITY SERVICES (K) LIMITED…….. RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Respondent in this cause has raised in limine the objection that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim for the reason that the same is statute barred. That is to say, the Claimants having been terminated from the Respondents’ employment in September, 2009 is prevented by section 90 of the Employment act from filing a claim more than 3 years thereafter. This claim was filed on 29th November, 2012.
2. As was held by Nyarangi JA (as he then was) in the famous case of Lilian S, jurisdiction is everything. Once a Court is found to lack jurisdiction, it must down its tools. No amount of judicial innovation can confer jurisdiction when it is clearly lacking.
3. The purpose of the law on limitation is to exert diligence on the Claimants to bring their disputes to Courts expeditiously while shielding defendants from having to defend stale claims. However in order not to occasion injustice, the Courts may be moved in appropriate cases to extend the limitation period.
4. A suit filed outside the time prescribed by the limitation law without leave is therefore incompetent and the Courts lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.
5. It is not in dispute that the Claimants herein was issued with a termination letter in September, 2009. It therefore means that any action in connection with the termination of his services ought to have been brought within 3 years thereafter. That is to say by September 2012. The suit herein was filed on 29th November, 2012 which was more than 3 years prescribed by section 90 of the Employment Act. From the record, no leave was first sought and possibly obtained prior to its commencement. In any event a plain reading of section 90 gives the impression that unlike the Limitation of Action Act, which govern civil claims generally, it seems impermissible to extend the limitation period with regard to claims based on the Employment Act.
6. The Claimant was arrested and charged with a criminal offence related to his work. He was prosecuted and later acquitted of the charges on 2nd November, 2011. He however states that he was out on bond as from September, 2009. No explanation was given why the Claimant did not contest the termination of his services when he received the termination letter in September, 2009.
7. The argument that he was awaiting the outcome of the criminal prosecution is flawed since he ceased to be an employee of the Respondent the moment he was issued with the termination letter and failed to challenge it.
8. In any event an acquittal from criminal charges has no relationship with a dismissal of an employee based on employers’ internal disciplinary processes. The standard of proof in criminal cases is higher than disciplinary process where strict rules of evidence are rarely observed.
9. To this extent the Court up holds the preliminary objection by the Respondent and declares the suit a filed incompetent and the same is hereby struck out with costs.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 16th day of October, 2014
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 16th day of October, 2014
In the presence of:-
………………………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
…………………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge