[2023] KEELRC 2952 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 2952 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner was terminated from service on February 8, 2011, and acquitted in a related criminal case on July 3, 2015. The petition was filed in 2023, well outside the limitation period prescribed by section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act. The only reason advanced for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2952 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Erick Otieno Ondunga; Respondent: Kenya Defence Forces; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E70 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
petition dismissed as time-barred; preliminary objection upheld
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Unfair Termination, Malicious Prosecution, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Constitutional Law Limitation of Actions Unfair Termination Malicious Prosecution Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erick Otieno Ondunga

Applicant

Kenya Defence Forces

Respondent

The Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the petition is time-barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner can rely on constitutional provisions to circumvent statutory limitation periods.
  3. 3 Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner was terminated from service on February 8, 2011, and acquitted in a related criminal case on July 3, 2015. The petition was filed in 2023, well outside the limitation period prescribed by section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act. The only reason advanced for the delay was lack of legal fees, which the court found implausible and insufficient to justify the delay. The court held that constitutional provisions could not be invoked to override clear statutory limitation periods in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the court upheld the preliminary objection, found the petition time-barred, and declared it an abuse of...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed as time-barred; preliminary objection upheld

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated October 25, 2023 is upheld.
  • The petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.