[2019] KEELRC 964 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 964 (KLR)

The court found that the claim was filed three years and eleven months after the cause of action arose, exceeding the statutory limitation period of three years under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. Citing binding precedent, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that no extension of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers; Respondent: National Social Security Fund
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 392 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
suit struck out as time barred
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation of Actions Employment Termination Jurisdiction of Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers

Claimant

National Social Security Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed more than three years after the cause of action arose.
  3. 3 Whether extension of time can be granted for claims founded on contract of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claim was filed three years and eleven months after the cause of action arose, exceeding the statutory limitation period of three years under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. Citing binding precedent, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that no extension of time could be granted for employment contract claims. Consequently, the suit was struck out as time barred.

Court Disposition

suit struck out as time barred

Orders

  • The suit is struck out for being time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  • No order as to costs.