[2018] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)
The court found that the claimants' cause of action arose on 15.9.2000 when they were retrenched. Under the Limitation of Actions Act, the limitation period for such claims is six years. The suit was filed on 4.4.2011, well after the limitation period had lapsed on 15.9.2006. As a result, the suit was statute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Noah M. J. Karoki; Applicant: Joel Njunga Kingu; Applicant: James Kangethe Kamau; Applicant: Rahab Njeri Mwangi; Applicant: Ann Njeri Maina; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 506 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out as statute barred
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Statute of Limitations, Retrenchment, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction, Civil Service Terms
- 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
Noah M. J. Karoki
Applicant
Joel Njunga Kingu
Applicant
James Kangethe Kamau
Applicant
Rahab Njeri Mwangi
Applicant
Ann Njeri Maina
Applicant
The Attorney General
Respondent
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed outside the statutory limitation period.
- 3 Whether the suit is an abuse of the process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimants' cause of action arose on 15.9.2000 when they were retrenched. Under the Limitation of Actions Act, the limitation period for such claims is six years. The suit was filed on 4.4.2011, well after the limitation period had lapsed on 15.9.2006. As a result, the suit was statute barred, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The preliminary objection was unopposed, and the court struck out the suit for being filed out of time, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as statute barred
Orders
- The suit is struck out for being filed out of time.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 506 OF 2011
NOAH M. J. KAROKI..............................................................1 ST CLAIMANT
JOEL NJUNGA KINGU...........................................................2NDCLAIMANT
JAMES KANGETHE KAMAU...............................................3RDCLAIMANT
RAHAB NJERI MWANGI.......................................................4THCLAIMANT
ANN NJERI MAINA................................................................5THCLAIMANT
(suing on behalf of Instructor/Managers Youth Polytechnics)
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................1STRESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS..........2NDRESPONDENT
RULING
1. The claimants brought this suit on 4. 4.2011 alleging that they were retrenched through the letter dated 15. 9.2000 and sought the following reliefs:
(a) Improved terms and conditions of employment in tandem with terms and conditions of the Civil Service.
(b) Improved salaries as per the labour laws governing the country.
(c) Payment of all terminal dues for any retired claimant
(d) Medical/house allowances and all other benefits accorded to other Civil Servants.
(e) Categorization of the claimants to the various job groups and payment of salaries as per the said job groups.
2. The first claimant filed Notice to withdraw on 22. 2.2016 before the respondents filed the Notice of Objection to the suit (PO) dated 14. 3.2018 seeking to have the suit struck out with costs for the following grounds:
(a) The suit is statute barred
(b) The suit is an abuse of the process of the court.
(c) The suit is incompetent.
The parties to dispose of the P. O by way of written submission but despite service by the respondent, the claimants never filed their submissions to oppose the P.O. It is therefore in order for the court to find that the P.O is unopposed. However out of curiosity, I have deliberately decided to consider the issue of statute bar.
Statute barred suit
3. Under paragraph 25 and 26, the claimants pleaded that they were retrenched from service by the letter dated 15. 9.2000. Flowing from that pleading, the cause of action herein arose under the Employment Act in force before June 2008 which is now repealed. Under the retired statute the limitation time within which to commence suit was governed by section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act which provided for 6 years from the time the cause of action arose. The cause of action herein having arisen on 15. 9.2000, the 6 years within which to commence suit lapsed on 15. 9.2006. This suit having been instituted on 4. 4.2011 was therefore statute barred and the court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain it. I must therefore, which I do now, down my tools.
Conclusion and Disposition
4. For the reason that the suit was filed out of the statutory limitation period, I proceed to strike out with no order as to costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in Open Court at Nairobi this 28thday of September, 2018
ONESMUS N. MAKAU
JUDGE