[2019] KEELRC 1142 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's suit was time barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, as it was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. The trial court erred by failing to consider the limitation issue, which was properly pleaded and argued. As limitation is a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ogembo Tea Factory Co. Ltd; Respondent: Amosh Ombogo Marando
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal 19 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; suit struck out as time barred
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Workplace Injury, Employment Relationship, Time Bar, Damages Award
- 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
Ogembo Tea Factory Co. Ltd
Appellant
Amosh Ombogo Marando
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's suit was time barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent was an employee of the appellant.
- 3 Whether the respondent sustained injuries in the course of employment with the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's suit was time barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, as it was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. The trial court erred by failing to consider the limitation issue, which was properly pleaded and argued. As limitation is a substantive bar to the suit, the appellate court allowed the appeal and struck out the respondent's suit in its entirety, without considering the merits of the other grounds of appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; suit struck out as time barred
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The respondent's suit is struck out in its entirety as time barred.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
ELRC APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2018
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
OGEMBO TEA FACTORY CO. LTD.......APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMOSH OMBOGO MARANDO..........RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Appeal is from judgment of the Principal Magistrate, Ogembo Hon. Naomi Wairimu delivered on 20th December 2017.
2. The grounds of Appeal may be summarized as follows:
i. Learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to hold that the suit was time barred by dint of Section 90 of the Employment Act and Section 4(2) of the limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 laws of Kenya.
ii. The trial magistrate erred in not finding that the respondent was not an employee of the claimant.
iii. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that the respondent sustained injuries in the course of employment with the Appellant and
iv. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding excessive damages in the circumstances of the case.
3. This being a first appeal, the court’s primary role is to re-assess and consider the evidence on record and draw own conclusions based on the applicable law to the facts of the case. See Selle vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited (1968) EA 123.
4. The issues for determination are:
i. Whether the Respondent’s suit was time bared and ought to have ben struck-off in the first instance.
ii. Whether grounds of Appeal on the merits of the case have substance.
iii. What relief ought the court to grant in the circumstances of the case.
Issue I
5. According to the record of Appeal and specifically, the plaint dated 26th January 2012, and filed on 9th February 2012, the cause of action arose on 20th November 2007, when the respondent sustained injuries in the cause of duty at the Appellant’s employ by a loose metal bar.
6. The suit was filed four (4) years two months from the date the cause of action arose. The suit is founded on tort and therefore Section 4(2) of the limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 laws of Kenya applies.
7. The Section reads:
“An action founded on tort may not be brought after the end of three years from the date on which the cause of action occurred provided that an action for libel or slander may not be brought after the end of twelve months from such date.”
8. The respondent pleaded under paragraph 9 of the statement of defence that the matter was time barred and prayed that the suit be struck out.
9. The Appellant filed written submission in which the issue of time bar was canvassed however, the learned trial magistrate did not consider the matter at all in the judgment delivered on 20th December 2017.
10. It is this court’s considered finding that the trial court was bound to consider this issue at the first instance because it was part of the pleadings before court failing which the matter ought to have been revisited in the final judgment of the trial court. See the cases of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian ‘S’ vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) KLR and Samuel Kamau Macharia and another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited and 2 others; S.C Application No. 2 of 2012; (2012)
11. It is the finding of the court that this suit was time barred by dint of Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya and on this basis alone, the Appeal is allowed and the suit struck off in its entirety.
12. Since the omission to deal with the issue was by the court, we find this appropriate case for each party to bear their costs of the suit and the Appeal.
Judgment Dated, Signed and delivered this 9th day of July, 2019
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
M/S. Onyinkwa for the Appellant.
Mr. Mbeche for the Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk