[2023] KEELRC 2050 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's cause of action arose in August 2015 when he was verbally dismissed after acquittal. The claim was filed on 23rd April 2018, more than three years after the cause of action arose. Section 90 of the Employment Act prescribes a mandatory three-year limitation period for employment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 2050 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sakayo Malusi; Respondent: Inter Security Services Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 590 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim struck out as statute barred
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Unfair Termination, Summary Dismissal, Statutory Bar, Employment Contracts
- 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
Sakayo Malusi
Applicant
Inter Security Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant's suit is statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly terminated without due process.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal dues and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's cause of action arose in August 2015 when he was verbally dismissed after acquittal. The claim was filed on 23rd April 2018, more than three years after the cause of action arose. Section 90 of the Employment Act prescribes a mandatory three-year limitation period for employment claims, which cannot be extended. As such, the claim was statute barred, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The claim was accordingly struck out.
Court Disposition
claim struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The claim is struck out for being statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Malusi v Inter Security Services Limited (Cause 590 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2050 (KLR) (31 July 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 2050 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 590 of 2018
NJ Abuodha, J
July 31, 2023
Between
Sakayo Malusi
Claimant
and
Inter Security Services Limited
Respondent
Judgment
1. The claimant pleaded that he was employed by the respondent as security guard. According to the claimant he was entitled to one month’s notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice. At the time of termination, his monthly salary was Kshs.8,276/= and house allowance of Kshs.1,000/=.
2. According to the claimant he was on 16th December, 2011 arrested on allegations of theft and charged with stealing contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code. He was acquitted of the charges on 20th August, 2015. He attempted to report to work but was verbally dismissed without cause. He was further not paid his salary for December among his terminal dues.
3. The claimant therefore claimed from the respondent among others underpayment during the period worked, unpaid salary during suspension and salary in lieu of notice. All totaling to kshs.1,630,170/=.
4. The claimant further averred that he was never called upon to explain anything or defend himself against the allegations that led to his dismissal. The claimant consequently claimed a total sum of Kshs.1,630,170/= on account of underpayment, unpaid salary during suspension, annual leave, salary in lieu of notice and compensation for unfair termination.
5. The respondent filed a statement of response and a notice of preliminary objection. They averred that the claimant was a former employee but remained absent from duty after he was charged in court for stealing at Lamada Godown where he had been assigned to work.
6. The respondent further raised a preliminary objection that the claim was statute barred by virtue of Section 90 of the Employment Act.
7. Limitation goes to the jurisdiction of the court hence the court cannot proceed when it is satisfied that a matter is barred by statute. It does not matter that the matter proceeded as an undefended cause. The court on its own motion can decline jurisdiction if it is clear that the claim is statute barred.
8. The claimant herein according to his own pleadings was arrested on 16th December, 2011 on allegations of theft. He was tried and acquitted on 20th August, 2015 he thereafter attempted to go to work but was unsuccessful because according to him, he had been verbally dismissed. It this be the case, from August, 2015 when the claimant alleges, he was verbally dismissed to 23rd April, 2018 when he filed the claim was more than three years provided for under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
9. This section is couched on mandatory terms and once lapses the period cannot be extended.
10. To this extent the court find the claim statute barred and hereby strikes the same out with no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS DAY OF 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023. ABUODHA J. N.JUDGE