[2023] KEELRC 217 (KLR)
The court found that there is a dispute as to whether the claimant deserted employment or remains employed, which is a factual issue requiring evidence. The preliminary objection does not raise a pure point of law but involves contested facts regarding the claimant's employment status and the alleged continuous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 217 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benson Bwire Odhiambo; Respondent: Colombia Developers [K] Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E147 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection declined
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Continuous Injury, Employment Contracts, Salary Arrears
- 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
Benson Bwire Odhiambo
Applicant
Colombia Developers [K] Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection raises a pure point of law or involves disputed facts.
- 3 Whether the claim is based on continuous injury and if so, when the cause of action arose.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there is a dispute as to whether the claimant deserted employment or remains employed, which is a factual issue requiring evidence. The preliminary objection does not raise a pure point of law but involves contested facts regarding the claimant's employment status and the alleged continuous injury. The court held that the question of limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, cannot be determined at this preliminary stage without ascertaining when the cause of action arose. Therefore, the preliminary objection was declined, and the matter will proceed to hearing for evidence to be taken on the disputed facts.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection declined
Orders
- The preliminary objection is declined.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Odhiambo v Colombia Developers [K] Limited (Cause E147 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 217 (KLR) (31 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 217 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E147 of 2022
J Rika, J
January 31, 2023
Between
Benson Bwire Odhiambo
Claimant
and
Colombia Developers [K] Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated September 29, 2022. It argues that the Claim is time-barred, under Section 90 of the Employment Act , 2007.
2. Parties agreed to have the Objection considered and determined on the strength of their Submissions. These were confirmed to have been filed and exchanged at the last mention, on November 10, 2022.
3. The Claimant pleads that he was employed by the Respondent as a Projects Manager, on July 1, 2013, on a monthly salary of Kshs 100,000. He was last paid salary in April 2016. He considers himself still an Employee of the Respondent, over 6 years after he last received a salary from the Respondent, and claims arears of salary, allowances, leave and statutory contributions, added-up at Kshs 10,607,200, computed from May 2016 until May 2022.
4. He submits that the Objection is not a pure point of law, but relates to disputed facts. The Respondent pleads that the Claimant deserted employment in 2016, while the Claimant states that he is still in employment. There is a continuing default. The Claim is not about termination, but non-payment of salary.
5. The Respondent submits that the Claimant does not contest that the cause of action arose in 2016. The Claim was filed 6 years later, in 2022. The Court is deprived of temporal jurisdiction.
The Court Finds: - 6. There is dispute whether the Claimant deserted employment, or is still in employment. The Preliminary Objection is not a pure point of law. It has to be ascertained if the Claimant deserted, or is still and Employee, entitled to salary and allowances in arrears. He pleads that the Respondent has continued to deny him his salary. He pleads continuous injury. However much unlikely, his claim that he is still in employment after the lapse of over 6 years since he last earned a salary from the Respondent appears, he must be granted a hearing. The cause of action in continuous injury, under Section 90 of the Employment Act, arises within 12 months after cessation of the default. The Court does not think that the Claimant can be resolved preliminarily, under section 90 of the Employment Act , 2007. There is need to take evidence from the Parties, to establish when the cause of action arose.
IT IS ORDERED: -a.Preliminary Objection is declined.b.Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY, AT NAIROBI, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023. James RikaJudge