[2023] KEELRC 1229 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant's own pleadings confirmed his employment was terminated on May 13, 2019, and the claim was filed on September 20, 2022, outside the three-year limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act. The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to extend the statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1229 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Dr Solomon Njenga; Respondent: Bishop Joshua Nzau Kimuyu - Nairobi Area Church Council Chairman; Respondent: Reverend Nickson Mutisya Wambua - Africa Inland Church Embakasi Local Council; Respondent: Jackson Ndolo- Africa Inland Church Embakasi District Church Council
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Employment and Labour Relations Cause E656 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction due to being time-barred.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Jurisdiction of Court, Unlawful 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
Dr Solomon Njenga
Claimant
Bishop Joshua Nzau Kimuyu - Nairobi Area Church Council Chairman
Respondent
Reverend Nickson Mutisya Wambua - Africa Inland Church Embakasi Local Council
Respondent
Jackson Ndolo- Africa Inland Church Embakasi District Church Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed outside the statutory limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant's own pleadings confirmed his employment was terminated on May 13, 2019, and the claim was filed on September 20, 2022, outside the three-year limitation period prescribed by Section 90 of the Employment Act. The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to extend the statutory limitation period for employment claims, as established by binding precedent. Consequently, the court upheld the Respondents' Preliminary Objection and struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction due to being time-barred.
Orders
- The Preliminary Objection is upheld.
- The Claimant’s claim is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Njenga v Kimuyu - Nairobi Area Church Council Chairman & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E656 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1229 (KLR) (18 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 1229 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E656 of 2022
L Ndolo, J
May 18, 2023
Between
Dr Solomon Njenga
Claimant
and
Bishop Joshua Nzau Kimuyu - Nairobi Area Church Council Chairman
1st Respondent
Reverend Nickson Mutisya Wambua - Africa Inland Church Embakasi Local Council
2nd Respondent
Jackson Ndolo- Africa Inland Church Embakasi District Church Council
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. By a Memorandum of Claim dated May 30, 2022, the Claimant sued the Respondents for unlawful termination of employment.
2. Subsequent to this, the Respondents filed a notice of Preliminary Objection dated October 19, 2022. The Objection is based on the following grounds:a.That the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim by virtue of it being time barred pursuant to Section 90 of the Employment Act;b.That the Claimant’s employment was terminated on May 13, 2019 but he filed his claim on September 20, 2022, after the lapse of three (3) years from the date of termination;c.That the Claimant’s right to sue having lapsed, he lacks the capacity to bring any cause of action against the Respondents and his claim as constituted, ought to be struck out with costs.
3. The Respondent filed written submissions in support of the Preliminary Objection. The Claimant chose not to respond.
4. Section 90 of the Employment Act provides as follows: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.
5. In his own Memorandum of Claim, the Claimant pleads that his employment was terminated on May 13, 2019 and this is when his cause of action arose.
6. The law is now firmly grounded on the issue of limitation of time in claims arising from an employment contract and it is that the courts have no jurisdiction to extend time (see the Court of Appeal in Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2015] eKLR).
7. That said, the only finding to make is that the Claimant’s claim was filed out of time and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
8. In the result, I uphold the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondents and proceed to strike out the Claimant’s claim with no order for costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 18th DAY OF MAY 2023LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:No appearance for the ClaimantMr. Chebiego for the Respondents