[2013] KEELRC 855 (KLR)
The court found that the claim was filed nineteen years after the cause of action arose, far outside the statutory limitation periods provided by both the Limitation of Actions Act and the Employment Act, 2007. The court also held that the undated memorandum of claim was a fatal defect, rendering the pleading...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 855 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: KUDHEIHA Workers; Respondent: Moi Giathugu Secondary School
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1711 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Terminal Dues, Employment Contracts, Preliminary Objection
- 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
KUDHEIHA Workers
Applicant
Moi Giathugu Secondary School
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act and Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the undated memorandum of claim renders the suit defective.
- 3 Whether the claimant can rely on laws enacted after the cause of action arose.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claim was filed nineteen years after the cause of action arose, far outside the statutory limitation periods provided by both the Limitation of Actions Act and the Employment Act, 2007. The court also held that the undated memorandum of claim was a fatal defect, rendering the pleading invalid. The combination of these defects made the claim untenable in law, and the court dismissed the suit with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The claim is dismissed for being statute barred and defective.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1711 OF 2011
(Before D.K.N. Marete)
KUDHEIHA WORKERS ………...……….…………………………...…..….CLAIMANT
Versus
MOI GIATHUGU SECONDARY SCHOOL ………….………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
This matter was brought to court vide an undated memorandum filed in court by the claimant union on 6th October, 2011. The issue in dispute as therein expressed is,
‘Refusal by the Management to pay terminal dues to
Joseph Kagumba
Joseph Wahogo’
The respondent opted not to file a defence but chooses to defend the suit by way of a preliminary objection dated 7th November, 2011 and filed on the following day. It is set out as follows;
The suit is statute barred for being filed more than twelve (12) years after the alleged cause of action.
The claim does not disclose any cause of action.
The claimant is retrospectively relying on laws enacted 13 years after the alleged cause of action.
The claim is a gross abuse of the court process.
The matter came for hearing severally until the 19th June, 2013 when the parties proposed to dispose off the matter by way of submission on the preliminary objection with the court awarding the terms and timelines for the said submissions. These were had and the matter now awaits this ruling of court.
The respondent’s submission is that the suit is statute barred by reason of non-compliance with S.90, Employment Act, 2007. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the employment contract of the grievants now complained of was in June, 1992 and was filed on 6th November, 2011, nineteen (19) years down the line. This is offensive and too long to be considered reasonable.
Secondly, this claim is defective as the same is not dated though duly signed and filed on 6th October, 2011. The net effect of this is that the pleading by the claimant is defective and should not be allowed to pass the test of validity.
It is my finding that even on the later ground of the claim being undated, this would term the same defective and make it lose efficacy. I would on this and the ground of limitation as is broadly thrashed above find that the claim untenable for being out of the limitation period of six years as established by S.6 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Chapter 22, Laws of Kenya.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the case with costs to the respondent.
Dated, delivered and signed this 2nd day of October, 2013.
D.K.Njagi Marete
JUDGE
Appearances:
Mr. Mwangi instructed by the Union for the claimant.
Mr. Wanyaga instructed by Kinoti & Kibe Company Advocates for the respondent/applicant.