[2022] KEELRC 994 (KLR)
The court held that the claim was time-barred under both the Employment Act 2007, which provides a limitation period of three years, and the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides a limitation period of six years. The claimant retired in 1998, and the claim was filed in 2015, a delay of 17 years. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 994 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Josephat Hannington Mukiri (deceased, substituted by Dancun Lifwa Mukiri); Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation (formerly known as East African Railways Corporation)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1494 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim dismissed for want of temporal jurisdiction
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Employment Benefits, Retirement Claims
- 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
Josephat Hannington Mukiri (deceased, substituted by Dancun Lifwa Mukiri)
Claimant
Kenya Railways Corporation (formerly known as East African Railways Corporation)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Employment Act 2007 or the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the Employment Act 2007 applies to a retirement that occurred before its enactment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claim was time-barred under both the Employment Act 2007, which provides a limitation period of three years, and the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides a limitation period of six years. The claimant retired in 1998, and the claim was filed in 2015, a delay of 17 years. The court further noted that the Employment Act 2007 could not be applied to a retirement that occurred before the Act came into force. The excessive delay in bringing the claim deprived the court of temporal jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed for want of temporal jurisdiction
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The claim is dismissed for want of temporal jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1494 OF 2015
BETWEEN
JOSEPHAT HANNINGTON MUKIRI[deceasedsubstituted by his legal representative
DANCUN LIFWA MUKIRI]...............................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION [formerlyknown as
EAST AFRICANRAILWAYS CORPORATION]........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent way back on 16th May 1972. He was retired in 1998.
2. He filed this Claim on 25th August 2015. He claims that at the time of retirement he was not paid certain benefits, including severance, excess pension arrears, lump sum payment, and salary adjustment- total Kshs. 373,139. 12. He claims general damages, costs and interest.
3. He states that, ‘’ during retirement, the Respondent failed to comply with the dictates of the Employment Act 2007…’’
4. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 18th March 2021, arguing that the Claim is time-barred. It was filed 17 years after the cause of action arose.
5. Parties agreed to have the Objection canvassed by way of written submissions. These were confirmed to have been filed and served, at the last mention in Court, on 14th October 2021.
The Court Finds: -
6. The Claim is clearly time- barred, whether looked at from the perspective of the Employment Act 2007, which the Claimant pleads applies to his Claim, or the perspective of the Limitation of Actions Act. The 2 Acts of Parliament place a limitation of 3 and 6 years respectively, from the time the cause accrues. How was the Respondent to comply with the dictates of the Employment Act, 2007 during the Claimant’s retirement, while the Act was not in place? 17 years, is too long a delay, to bring an employment dispute before this Court.
IT IS ORDERED: -
The Preliminary Objection is upheld, and the Claim dismissed for want of temporal jurisdiction, with no order on the costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI, UNDER MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022.
James Rika
Judge