[2012] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

[2012] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

The court determined that the cause of action accrued on 6th June, 2003, when the Minister's appointed investigator communicated his report. According to Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, the claimant was required to file the claim within three years from that date. Since the claim was filed on 12th April,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEELRC 104 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers; Respondent: Njabini Secondary School
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 846 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed as time barred
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Unlawful Termination, Summary Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation Periods Unlawful Termination Summary Dismissal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers

Applicant

Njabini Secondary School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claim was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the grievant's employment was unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the cause of action accrued on 6th June, 2003, when the Minister's appointed investigator communicated his report. According to Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, the claimant was required to file the claim within three years from that date. Since the claim was filed on 12th April, 2010, well after the expiry of the statutory limitation period, the court found the claim to be time barred and dismissed it with costs.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed as time barred

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed with costs.