[2014] KEELRC 293 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's pursuit of reinstatement and other remedies invoked the jurisdiction of the Employment Act, 2007, which is subject to a three-year limitation period under Section 90. The claimant could not selectively rely on the repealed Employment Act for limitation purposes while seeking...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 293 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joyce Wanjiku Muchiko; Applicant: Communication Workers Union of Kenya; Respondent: Telkom Kenya Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1299 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Limitation Periods, Reinstatement, Trade Disputes Procedure
- 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
Joyce Wanjiku Muchiko
Applicant
Communication Workers Union of Kenya
Applicant
Telkom Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim for unfair and unlawful termination is statute-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to reinstatement and other remedies sought under the applicable law.
- 3 Whether the claim should have been pursued under the Trade Disputes Act or the Employment Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's pursuit of reinstatement and other remedies invoked the jurisdiction of the Employment Act, 2007, which is subject to a three-year limitation period under Section 90. The claimant could not selectively rely on the repealed Employment Act for limitation purposes while seeking remedies only available under the newer statutes. Furthermore, the dispute should have been pursued under the Trade Disputes Act as per the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Since the claim was filed outside the prescribed limitation period and not under the correct statutory framework, it was statute-barred and improperly before the court. Accordingly, the claim...
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The claim is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1299 OF 2011
BETWEEN
JOYCE WANJIKU MUCHIKO.....................................1ST CLAIMANT
COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION OF KENYA......2ND CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TELKOM KENYA LIMITED............................................RESPONDENT
Rika J
CC. Edward Kidemi
Mr. Onyony instructed by Onyony & Company Advocates for the Claimant
Mrs. Mbabu instructed by P. K. Mbabu & Company Advocates for the Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE IN DISPUTE: UNFAIR AND UNLAWFUL TERMINATION
AWARD
This Claim was filed on 1st August 2011. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent Company as a Clerical Assistant II, on 31st March 1987.
She was suspended from duty on 23rd August 2002. Her contract of employment was subsequently terminated on 7th April 2006.
She seeks the following orders:-
(a) A Declaration that termination was unfair, wrongful and unlawful.
(b) Reinstatement of the Claimant without loss of benefits and seniority.
(c) Payment of actual pecuniary loss from the date of termination to the date of determination of the dispute.
(d) Interests, costs and any other suitable relief.
The Claim was amended introducing the Communication Workers Union of Kenya as the 2nd Claimant, through the Amended Statement of Claim dated 1st October 2013.
The Respondent filed its initial Statement of Response dated 19th August 2011, and an Amended Statement of Response, dated 14th October 2013.
The Claimant was heard and rested her case on 12th February 2014. The respondent did not call any Witness, adopting its Pleadings and Submissions on record. The Parties confirmed the filing of their Closing Submissions on 2nd April 2014. The Advocates underscored these Submissions in brief presentations made before the Court on 23rd July 2014, and the decision of the Court reserved for today.
In paragraph 6 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Respondent states that the Claim is statute-barred by the virtue of Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which places a limit of 3 years on the filing of Claims based on the Act, or contracts of service in general.
The Claimant answers that her Claim is properly in Court. The applicable Law is the repealed Employment Act Cap 226 the Laws of Kenya, and the applicable Law on limitation is the Limitation of Action Act Cap 22 the Laws of Kenya, placing a limit of 6 years on the filing of contract disputes, from the date of accrual. 6 years had not lapsed by the time of filing the Claim.
The Court Finds and Awards:-
1. This argument by the Claimant is incorrect. Her prayers include the remedy of reinstatement, which was not given under the Employment Act Cap 226, but given under the Trade Disputes Act Cap 234 the Laws of Kenya, and the Employment Act 2007. She could only be pursuing reinstatement under the Trade Disputes Act or the Employment Act 2007.
2. In Paragraph 6 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Claimant avers the termination of her contract of employment, contravened the Employment Act 2007.
3. She cannot invoke the reinstatement jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007, while disregarding Section 90 on limitation contained in the same Act.
4. The Claimant was represented by a Trade Union, the 2nd Claimant herein, before filing the Claim. The dispute was referred to the Minister for Labour, and should have been dealt with under the transitional provision contained in Section 84 of the Labour Relations Act No. 14 of 2007.
5. Schedule 5 under this provision states that all termination disputes which arose before the passage of the Labour Relations Act, are to be dealt with in accordance with the Trade Disputes Act, Cap 234 the Laws of Kenya.
6. Reinstatement and the other secondary prayers sought, should therefore have been pursued under the procedure prescribed by the Trade Disputes Act.
7. The Claimant seems to have filed this Claim under the Employment Act 2007 and the Labour Institutions Act 2007 and while seeking to avoid the adverse limitation of time imposed by the Employment Act 2007, also invoked the old Employment Act to assist her in accessing the 6 years limitation available under the Limitation of Actions Act.
8. To the extent that the Claimant invokes the Employment Act 2007 on remedies, the Claim is statutory barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007. And considering that she did not pursue her Claim under Section 84 of the Labour Relations Act, preserving the application of the Trade Disputes Act, the Court is persuaded the Claim is improperly before it.
On the two grounds,the Claim is dismissed, with no order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of September 2014
James Rika
Judge