[2018] KEELRC 2135 (KLR)
The court held that the cause of action arose in 2005, prior to the enactment of the Employment Act, 2007. Therefore, the applicable law on limitation is section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides a six-year limitation period for contractual claims. Since the claimants filed their suit exactly six...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Kungu Ndungu; Applicant: Florence Wambui Mukami; Applicant: Stanley Ngugi Kamau; Applicant: Paul Kigaa Ndugu; Respondent: Socfinaf Co. Ltd t/a Tatu Estate
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 719 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed on merits
- Judges
- MN Nduma, DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Employment Termination, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Moses Kungu Ndungu
Applicant
Florence Wambui Mukami
Applicant
Stanley Ngugi Kamau
Applicant
Paul Kigaa Ndugu
Applicant
Socfinaf Co. Ltd t/a Tatu Estate
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Which limitation law applies to causes of action arising before the Employment Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the cause of action arose in 2005, prior to the enactment of the Employment Act, 2007. Therefore, the applicable law on limitation is section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides a six-year limitation period for contractual claims. Since the claimants filed their suit exactly six years after the cause of action arose, the suit was filed within the limitation period. The preliminary objection based on section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 was therefore misconceived and dismissed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed on merits
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed.
- The suit shall proceed on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 719 OF 2011
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
1. MOSES KUNGU NDUNGU
2. FLORENCE WAMBUI MUKAMI
3. STANLEY NGUGI KAMAU
4. PAUL KIGAA NDUGU.......................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
SOCFINAF CO. LTD T/A TATU ESTATE..........RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection to the suit on grounds that the suit is time barred by dint of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
2. The Memorandum of Claim was filed on 12th May, 2011. From the face of the Claim, the Claimants employment were terminated on 10th and 11th May, 2005 respectively. That is when the cause of action arose. It is clear from the pleadings that the suit was filed exactly six (6) years from the date the cause of action arose.
3. The Cause of Action arose before the enactment of the Employment Act, 2007 in 2005 and the law on limitation applicable to the suit is section 4(1) of Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya which provides that suits based on contract must be filed within six (6) years from the date the cause of action arose.
4. The present suit was filed within the limitation period.
5. The Preliminary Objection is misconceived and is dismissed. The suit to proceed on the merits.
Dated and Signed in Kisumu this 7th day of March, 2018
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
Judge
Delivered and signed in Nairobi this 6th day of April, 2018
MAUREEN ONYANGO
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Otieno for Respondent/Applicant
Mr. Lutta for Claimant/Respondent
Anne Njung’e – Court Clerk