[2021] KEELRC 430 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 430 (KLR)

The court found that the claim was time-barred under both Section 87[b] of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act, which requires claims to be filed within one year of the cause of action, and Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which imposes a three-year limitation period. The claimant was retrenched in 2008 but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 430 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Lucas O. Odonya; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 214 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; claim declined as time-barred
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Terminal Benefits, Retrenchment, Continuing Injury, Jurisdiction, Employment Contracts
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Limitation of Actions Terminal Benefits Retrenchment Continuing Injury Jurisdiction Employment Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucas O. Odonya

Claimant

Kenya Railways Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 87[b] of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  3. 3 Whether the claim constitutes a continuing injury not subject to limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claim was time-barred under both Section 87[b] of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act, which requires claims to be filed within one year of the cause of action, and Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which imposes a three-year limitation period. The claimant was retrenched in 2008 but filed the claim in 2014, well outside both limitation periods. The court rejected the claimant's argument that the claim was for a continuing injury, noting that the claim was for terminal benefits arising from a single act of retrenchment, not a continuing injury or damage. The court further held that jurisdictional objections based on limitation can be raised at any stage...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; claim declined as time-barred

Orders

  • The Preliminary Objection is upheld.
  • The Claim is time-barred and is hereby declined.