[2016] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)
The court found that the claim was filed approximately ten years after the cause of action arose, far exceeding the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court reaffirmed that limitation periods go to the jurisdiction of the court, and no court is permitted to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Lingoln Otakwa M'Meli; Respondent: Mars Security Guards Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 360 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction of Court
- 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
Lingoln Otakwa M'Meli
Claimant
Mars Security Guards Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time-barred under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed outside the statutory limitation period.
- 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to file the suit after the lapse of six years from the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claim was filed approximately ten years after the cause of action arose, far exceeding the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court reaffirmed that limitation periods go to the jurisdiction of the court, and no court is permitted to extend time for filing a suit based on contract beyond the statutory period. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and it was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as time-barred
Orders
- The suit is struck off with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 360 OF 2015
LINGOLN OTAKWA M’MELI .............................. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MARS SECURITY GUARDS LIMITED………….... RESPONDENT
RULING
This suit was brought vide a memorandum of claim dated 11th March 2015 and filed on the same date. From the memorandum of claim, it is apparent that the cause of action arose on 22nd September 2004 when the employment of the claimant was terminated by the respondent.
The dispute was reported to the Minister for Labour for conciliation on 14th September 2011 and recommendation to settle the matter was made by the conciliator.
The claimant wrote a letter dated 23rd September 2004 disagreeing with the decision of the conciliator.
The respondent states that the claimant was duly paid as per the recommendation of the labour officer and that this suit is without basis and same be dismissed.
On 13th May 2015, the respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection to the effect that the claim is time barred by virtue of section 90 of the Employment Act and therefore should be struck out.
It is apparent that the cause of action arose on 22nd September 2004 and the same was filed on 11th March 2015, about ten (10) years later.
The law applicable to this matter regarding limitation is section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, cap. 22 of the laws of Kenya. In terms thereof, no suit based on contract may be filed after six years have lapsed.
The plaintiff, filed this suit out of time without leave of court. The court however notes that the Court of Appeal in the case of Devicon, reaffirmed the position, which is now trite law that no suit based on contract may be filed after six years have elapsed. That, no court is permitted to extend time within which to file a suit based on contract in terms of section 14(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 of the laws of Kenya.
That questions of limitation go to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit having been filed about ten (10) years after the cause of action arose.
The suit is therefore struck off with costs to the respondent.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of January 2016
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE