[2013] KEELRC 347 (KLR)
The court held that limitation of actions is a jurisdictional issue. Once the statutory period for filing a claim under the Employment Act has lapsed, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter or grant leave to file out of time. The applicant's previous claim was dismissed for being time-barred, and there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 347 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joel Muriuki Yambo; Respondent: Nairobi Bottlers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 10 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed; originating summons struck out with costs
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction of Court, Extension of Time, Employment Contracts
- 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
Joel Muriuki Yambo
Applicant
Nairobi Bottlers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to file a claim out of time under the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether limitation of actions bars the applicant's intended suit.
- 3 Whether the applicant's circumstances justify extension of time to file the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that limitation of actions is a jurisdictional issue. Once the statutory period for filing a claim under the Employment Act has lapsed, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter or grant leave to file out of time. The applicant's previous claim was dismissed for being time-barred, and there is no legal basis to enlarge time or admit the claim. The court is bound by the statutory limitation periods and cannot exercise jurisdiction where it does not exist. Consequently, the applicant's application for leave to file suit out of time fails and is struck out with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed; originating summons struck out with costs
Orders
- The applicant's application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed.
- The originating summons is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
54 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Industrial Court of Kenya
Cause 10 of 2013 [if gte mso 9]><![endif]
JOEL MURIUKI YAMBO.............………………………………..……..………CLAIMANT
Versus
NAIROBI BOTTLERS LIMITED..........................…................….……......RESPONDENT
RULING
1)The Claimant filed an Originating Summons under Section 84, the Fifth Schedule of the Labour Relations Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court seeking the grant of leave to initiate a Claim against the Respondent. The Applicant based his application on various grounds, chief among then the following:-
i.THAT the requisite period for filing proceedings has expired due to circumstances beyond the Applicant's control;
ii.THAT in the circumstances, it is only fair and just that the Applicant be granted leave to file the intended suit out of time.
2)It was urged for the Applicant that the dismissal of the Claimant's Claim in December was on a technicality. Mr. Wanyama for the Claimant thus urged the Court to grant the Orders sought.
3)It has been held that limitation goes to jurisdiction. In the case of Thuranira Karauri v. Agnes Ndeche [1997] eKLRthe Court of Appeal held as much. In the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1the Court of Appeal held as follows (per Nyarangi JA)
'I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.'
4)The authority for this holding by the learned Judge is found in the writings of John Beecroft Saunders in Words and Phrases Legally defined – Volume 3: I – N which at page 113 states the following about jurisdiction:-
“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court
has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to
take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way
for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed
by the statute, charter, or commission under which the
court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted
by the like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed
the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation
may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions
and matters of which the particular court has cognisance,
or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend,
or it may partake of both these characteristics. If the
jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal (including
an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular
state of facts, the court or tribunal must inquire into the
existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has
jurisdiction; but, except where the court or tribunal has
been given power to determine conclusively whether
the facts exist. Where a court takes it upon itself to
exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its
decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be
acquired before judgement is given”
5)I agree with the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Thuranira Karauri v. Agnes Ndeche [1997] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that the issue of limitation goes to jurisdiction. This was the position taken in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya)(supra).Jurisdiction is everything, without it, I can do nothing.
6)In this case, the Applicant seeks to enlarge time and yet the Court (Rika J.) dismissed the Applicant's suit after the issue of limitation was broached in Cause 302 of 2012. The judge held that the Claim was in violation of Section 90 of the Employment Act. Section 90 provides as follows:-
90. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained or in the case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after the cessation thereof.
7)The Limitation of Actions Act Section 4 provides as follows:-
4. (1) The following actions may not be brought after the end of
six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued -
(a) actions founded on contract;-
This is the portion referred to in Section 90 of the Employment Act.
8)I therefore find that there is nothing that would allow me to admit the Claim. The Applicant's Application fails. In the final result the Originating Summons is struck out with costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this30thday ofApril2013
Hon. Mr. Justice Nzioki wa Makau
Judge
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]