[2014] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to file the claim out of time because the applicant's cause of action arose in 2007 and should have been litigated under the Trade Disputes Act and the Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kiplang’at Koech; Respondent: Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 19 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Claim Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Termination, Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction, Collective Bargaining Agreements
- 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
John Kiplang’at Koech
Applicant
Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Claim Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to file a claim out of time for alleged unlawful termination in 2007.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the previous court order to follow proper procedure at the Magistrates’ Court.
- 3 Whether the claim should have been litigated under the Trade Disputes Act and Labour Relations Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to file the claim out of time because the applicant's cause of action arose in 2007 and should have been litigated under the Trade Disputes Act and the Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the previous order requiring him to return to the Magistrates’ Court and follow the proper procedure. In the absence of evidence that the applicant had pursued the matter as directed, it was improper for him to seek relief before a different judge in the same court. The court's hands were tied by the statutory framework and prior orders, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to file claim out of time is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 19 OF 2014
BETWEEN
JOHN KIPLANG’AT KOECH………………………………..…………….. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (KAA)…………..………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant states he was unlawfully and summarily dismissed by the Kenya Airports Authority in January 2007.
He filed a Claim in the Chief Magistrates’ Court at Nairobi on 21st December 2007, seeking notice pay, termination dues, and damages for unlawful termination.
The Magistrate declined jurisdiction and transferred the Claim to the Industrial Court. On 9th May 2013, the Hon. Principal Judge Nderi Nduma ordered that the Magistrate had no authority to transfer the file to the Industrial Court. The file was referred to the Magistrates’ Court for the proper procedure to be followed.
On 27th February 2014, the Applicant filed an ex parte Originating Summons, asking for leave to file Claim out of the prescribed time.
The Application was heard on 25th March 2014.
The Court finds and Orders:-
1. The Applicant has not revealed to the Court whether he has gone back to the Magistrates’ Court as ordered by the Principal Judge of the Industrial Court, and if proper procedure was followed at the Magistrates’ Court as ordered.
2. In the absence of this revelation, it is improper for the Applicant to return before a different Judge in the same Court, and seek leave to file a fresh Claim.
3. The Court lacks jurisdiction in any event to extend time as prayed. Termination of Employment that arose in 2007. The Applicant seeks to enforce CBA obligations. His Claim ought to have been litigated under the Trade Disputes Act Cap 234 the Laws of Kenya, as read together with Section 84 of the Labour Relations Act No. 14 of 2007.
4. The Court’s hands are tied. The Application is dismissed, with no order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 8th day of July 2014
James Rika
Judge