[2016] KEELRC 933 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 08.04.2004, when he was dismissed from the police service. The suit was filed on 09.09.2008, more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action. The court found that the limitation period under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 933 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Julius Mathiu Mairuki; Defendant: The Director of Criminal Investigations; Defendant: Inspector General of Police; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 48 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit dismissed as time-barred
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Dismissal, Limitation of Actions, Public Authorities Limitation, Police Service Employment
- 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
Julius Mathiu Mairuki
Plaintiff
The Director of Criminal Investigations
Defendant
Inspector General of Police
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit was filed within the statutory limitation period applicable to claims against public authorities.
- 2 Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff from the police service was unlawful, oppressive, discriminatory, or contrary to police standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 08.04.2004, when he was dismissed from the police service. The suit was filed on 09.09.2008, more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action. The court found that the limitation period under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act applied, and the suit was therefore time-barred. The limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 was not applicable, as the cause of action arose before the Act came into force. Consequently, the court determined that the suit was an abuse of the court process and upheld the preliminary objection, dismissing the suit with costs.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed as time-barred
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 48 OF 2015
(Formerly High Court Civil Case No. 113 of 2008 at Meru)
JULIUS MATHIU MAIRUKI.............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS....................1ST DEFENDANT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.........................................2ND DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL...............................................3RD DEFENDANT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday, 22nd July, 2016)
RULING
The plaintiff filed the plaint on 09. 09. 2008 through Ayub K. Anampiu. The amended plaint was filed on 18. 03. 2016. The plaintiff prayed for judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for:
a) A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff was illegal, oppressive, discriminatory and vindictive and contrary to laws and specifically police standing orders.
b) Payment of all benefits, dues and expected salary up to the finalization of the suit.
The plaintiff has among other matters pleaded as follows:
a) He was until 08. 04. 2004 a Police Corporal No. 50800 working for the Government of Kenya.
b) On 23. 04. 2002 he was charged in orderly room proceedings, the charge was heard and he was reduced in rank to a Constable and transferred from Kasarani Police Division to West Pokot District.
c) The plaintiff appealed against the reduction in rank to the Commissioner of Police and by the letter dated 08. 04. 2004 the 1st defendant wrote to the claimant conveying that the claimant had been dismissed way back on 19. 08. 2003 because the earlier sentence of reduction in rank had been lenient.
The defendants filed the amended memorandum of response on 23. 03. 2016 through F.O.Makori, Litigation Counsel, for the Attorney General. At paragraph 10, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff’s claim against them is misconceived, fatally defective, not supported by law and the defendants reserved the right to raise and argue a preliminary objection to have the suit struck out with costs. The defendants’ case is that the claimant has pleaded that he was dismissed on 08. 04. 2007 and the suit should have been filed on or before 08. 04. 2007 within the three years of limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act as read with section 42(e) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
The court finds that the cause of action accrued long before the Employment Act, 2007 had been enacted and the time of limitation in section 90 of the Act did not apply. Nevertheless, the court finds that the suit was time barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act Cap. 39 because the action accrued on 08. 04. 2004 and the suit should have been filed on or before 08. 04. 2007 yet it was filed belatedly on 09. 09. 2008. Accordingly, the court finds that indeed the suit was an abuse of the court process.
In conclusion, the preliminary objection is upheld and the plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
Signed, datedanddeliveredin court atNyerithisFriday, 22nd July, 2016.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE