[2018] KEELRC 1156 (KLR)
The court held that it does not have discretion to extend the time for filing claims under the Employment Act once the limitation period has expired. Since the claimant's counsel conceded that the suit was filed after the three-year limitation period provided by Section 90 of the Employment Act, the court upheld the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1156 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mercy Kentrone Ayilo Ombili; Respondent: African Organization for Standardization
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 745 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out as statute barred
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, 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
Mercy Kentrone Ayilo Ombili
Applicant
African Organization for Standardization
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the court has discretion to extend time for filing employment claims after the limitation period has lapsed.
- 3 Whether the respondent enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under Article IV(2) of the Agreement/Accord.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it does not have discretion to extend the time for filing claims under the Employment Act once the limitation period has expired. Since the claimant's counsel conceded that the suit was filed after the three-year limitation period provided by Section 90 of the Employment Act, the court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit as statute barred. The court found it unnecessary to address the issue of immunity from legal proceedings, as the suit was already incompetent by reason of limitation.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The suit is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 745 OF 2014
MERCY KENTRONE AYILO OMBILI................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
AFRICAN ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The respondents in this matter raised in limine an objection that the suit herein having been filed on 7th May, 2014 was statute barred by virtue of Section 90 of the Employment Act.
2. The respondent further pleaded that the suit was incompetent by reason of the provisions of Article IV(2) of the Agreement/Accord between Republic of Kenya and the respondents by reason whereof the respondent enjoyed immunity against all forms of legal proceedings.
3. Counsel for the claimant in his submissions filed before the court concedes that the matter was filed on 7th May, 2014 way after the limitation period of three years provided for under Section 90 of the Employment Act had lapsed. Counsel however contended that the court can exercise discretion and allow the matter to proceed despite having been filed out of time.
4. The court has ruled severally that it does not have discretion to extend time for filing claims arising under Employment Actor contract of employment generally once time has lapsed.
5. To this extent the court on the very concession by the counsel for the claimant that the suit was filed contrary to Section 90 of the Act upholds the preliminary objection on this point. The court therefore does not need to delve in the second limb of the objection as to immunity from civil process.
6. The suit is therefore struck out with costs.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 21st day of September, 2018
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of September, 2018
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of:-
......................................for the Claimant
.................................for the Respondent