[2015] KEELRC 962 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants' claim for wrongful termination was time-barred, as it was filed well after the 6-year limitation period provided under the repealed Employment Act (1977) and the Limitation of Actions Act. The court found that the only grounds for extension of limitation under Section 22 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 962 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lawrence Ouko Olilo; Applicant: Domnic Ongany Akello; Respondent: Japheth; Respondent: Rafiq; Respondent: Saros; Respondent: JRS Security Group Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 5 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Limitation Period
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Wrongful Termination, Extension of Time
- 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
Lawrence Ouko Olilo
Applicant
Domnic Ongany Akello
Applicant
Japheth
Respondent
Rafiq
Respondent
Saros
Respondent
JRS Security Group Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Limitation Period
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can extend the limitation period for filing a claim for wrongful termination under the applicable law.
- 2 Whether lack of funds or ignorance of the law constitutes a ground for extension of limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants' claim for wrongful termination was time-barred, as it was filed well after the 6-year limitation period provided under the repealed Employment Act (1977) and the Limitation of Actions Act. The court found that the only grounds for extension of limitation under Section 22 of the Limitation of Actions Act are disability, part payment, or acknowledgment of debt. The applicants' reasons—lack of funds and ignorance of the law—do not fall within these statutory exceptions. The court also noted that the existence of pauper briefs addresses inability to pay court fees, and that ignorance of the law is not a valid ground for extension. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of limitation period is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT KISUMU
MISC NO. 5 OF 2015
(Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango on 16th March, 2015)
LAWRENCE OUKO OLILO }
DOMNIC ONGANY AKELLO ..................................................... APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. JAPHETH
2. RAFIQ
3. SAROS
4. JRS SECURITY GROUP LTD .................................... RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
I have considered the application, the submissions by both applicants and counsel for respondents. The application before me is for extension of limitation period for filing claim for wrongful termination. The applicants have pleaded that their employment was terminated in 2005. At that time the Employment Act in force was the repealed Employment Act (1977). Limitation periods for such claims was 6 years. According to the Limitation of Actions Act, the only circumstances when the court may extend the limitation period are those provided for under Section 22. For contracts, the limitation period can only be extended on grounds of disability, part payment or acknowledgement of debt. The applicants allege they were not in employment and did not have money to file. Lack of funds is not a disability recognized under the Limitation of Actions Act. The law provides for pauper briefs for persons who do not have capacity to pay court fees.
The case filed in the High Court by the applicant was in 2013. Even in 2013 their claim was out of time and the case in the High Court can therefore not be used for purposes of extending time on the basis that they went to court in time but unfortunately went to the wrong court.
I appreciate that the applicants may be ignorant of the provisions of the law. I have noted that they were not even able to express themselves through English or Kiswahili and had to use an interpreter. I also note that they are undefended and had difficulty expressing themselves as they are already urging the merits of their claim yet what is before court is an application for extension of time to file the claim. Unfortunately ignorance is not a ground for extension of time. Their claim is therefore beyond redemption due to lapse of time.
I therefore dismiss the application for extension of limitation period with no orders for costs.
MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE
16/3/2015
Appearances:-
M. M. Omondi for 4th respondent
Applicants present in person
CC. Wamache