[2024] KEELRC 1079 (KLR)
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act provides a clear limitation period of three years from the date the cause of action accrues. The claimant's resignation in January 2020 triggered the commencement of the limitation period, and the absence of a formal discharge did not delay or affect this. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 1079 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Mogaka; Respondent: Young Women Christian Association & 2 others
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E541 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Being Time Barred
- Outcome
- suit struck out as time barred; no order as to costs; respondent to pay salary for days worked
- Judges
- Nzioki wa Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Employment Termination, Salary Arrears, Commencement of Limitation, Discharge of Employee
- 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
Mary Mogaka
Applicant
Young Women Christian Association & 2 others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Being Time Barred
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the issuance of a formal discharge affects the commencement of the limitation period.
- 3 Whether the respondent owes the claimant salary for days worked.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act provides a clear limitation period of three years from the date the cause of action accrues. The claimant's resignation in January 2020 triggered the commencement of the limitation period, and the absence of a formal discharge did not delay or affect this. The claim, having been filed after the lapse of three years from the date of resignation, was therefore time barred. However, the court recognized that the respondent owed the claimant salary for days worked and ordered payment of the same, but struck out the suit with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as time barred; no order as to costs; respondent to pay salary for days worked
Orders
- The suit is struck out for being time barred.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Mogaka v Young Women Christian Association & 2 others (Cause E541 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1079 (KLR) (4 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 1079 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E541 of 2023
Nzioki wa Makau, J
April 4, 2024
Between
Mary Mogaka
Claimant
and
Young Women Christian Association & 2 others
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Respondents have vide their notice of motion dated 8th November 2023 sought the dismissal of the suit for being time barred. The Respondents assert the Claimant filed this claim against the them out of time in terms of section 90 of the Employment Act as she ceased being an employee in mid March 2020 when she resigned. The application is further grounded on the reasons stated on the face of the motion as well as upon the affidavit of Ms. Deborah Olwal in support of the application.
2. The Claimant was opposed and filed a replying affidavit on 13th December 2023. In it, she deponed that the 1st Respondent was to issue a formal discharge to the Claimant in order for time to run. She asserts that no discharge was delivered to her that in effect time never ran and that in the absence of the discharge, the contention on lapse of time or limitation cannot hold. She deponed that the case is properly before the court and within legal parameters as the Claimant was never discharged. The Claimant deponed that the 1st Respondent confirmed there were salary arrears that accrued and that time has not begun running. The Claimant further deponed that the 1st Respondent had not come to court with clean hands as the payment is pending at the 1st Respondent’s office.
3. In the main, the grounds of the motion for dismissal of the suit are that the claim is time barred. The Employment Act per section 90 provides as follows in respect of limitation:-90. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained or in the case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after the cessation thereof. [emphasis supplied]
4. This provision clearly demarcates the limitation of the cause of action. The fact that the Claimant resigned in January 2020, time begun to run on the date she resigned. The discharge of the Claimant is not what initiates the time per section 90 of the Act. Time begins to run the moment the cause of action accrues. In this case it accrued on 1st January 2020. The claim before me is therefore time barred and is for striking out, but granted the Respondent owes the Claimant salary for days worked since she was not a slave, I will not order any costs against her. The Respondent must pay her salary. Sum total of the foregoing is that the suit is struck out with no order as to costs.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024NZIOKI WA MAKAUJUDGE