[2014] KEELRC 59 (KLR)
The court held that the limitation objection raised by the respondent could not be determined solely on the basis of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, as some claims predated the Act and other limitation statutes might apply. Determining the limitation issue would require examination of facts and evidence,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 59 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Sikuku Wekesa; Respondent: Egerton University currently Laikipia University
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 489 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Joinder of Parties, Employment Benefits, Statutory Interpretation
- 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
Patrick Sikuku Wekesa
Applicant
Egerton University currently Laikipia University
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim for hardship allowance is statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- 2 Whether there is a misjoinder of parties in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the limitation objection raised by the respondent could not be determined solely on the basis of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, as some claims predated the Act and other limitation statutes might apply. Determining the limitation issue would require examination of facts and evidence, which is not appropriate at the preliminary objection stage. Similarly, the issue of misjoinder of parties would also require delving into evidence, removing it from the realm of a true preliminary objection. Therefore, the preliminary objection was dismissed, and the matters were left to be determined at the substantive hearing.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed.
- Costs in the Cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 489 OF 2014
PATRICK SIKUKU WEKESA.....................................................................CLAIMANT
v
EGERTON UNIVERSITY CURRENTLY LAIKIPIA UNIVERSITY........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant sued the Respondent on 7 October 2014 seeking Kshs 450,000/- allegedly deducted from his wages from 1 May 2009, on account of loss of Kshs 900,000/- through fraud attributed to him, and Kshs 150,000/- being hardship allowance for period March 1997 to June 2004 and from September 2007 to September 2010.
2. The Respondent filed a Response on 7 November 2014 and one of the defenses raised was that the claim for hardship allowance was time barred by virtue of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and that the Claimant was not an employee of Laikipia University hence there was misjoinder of parties.
3. The parties addressed the Court on the questions of limitation and misjoinder on 27 November 2014.
4. Mr. Mukira for the Respondent submitted that pursuant to section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 the aspect of claim relating to hardship allowance was statute barred as it was commenced after 7 years after cause of action arose. He urged that this was not a case of a continuing injury.
5. Mr. Mukira further submitted that there was misjoinder of parties and issues. He stated that no claim had been made against Egerton University, which should be the right party.
6. Mrs. Ndeda in response submitted that the union to which the Claimant was a member and the Respondent had been communicating in regard to the hardship allowances upto 2007 and that the deductions were made up to 2009.
7. On the joinder question, Mrs. Ndeda made reference to Legal Notice No. 157 of 2009 which made Laikipia University College a successor to Laikipia Campus of Egerton University and submitted that it assumed all its rights, liabilities and assets.
8. The Memorandum of Claim herein is quite wordy and it needs some keen reading to ascertain exactly the facts constituting the cause of action.
9. In regard to the limitation question, the Court notes that some of the heads of claim are based on causes of action accruing and predating the Employment Act, 2007. The Act commenced on 2 June 2008.
10. The Respondent founded its limitation objection solely on section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. Section 90 of the Act would therefore not be the only applicable statute.
11. It would require the Court to delve into questions of facts and evidence to establish which facts are affected by the Employment Act, 2007 and other limitation statutes.
12. It would not be prudent for the Court to enter into that discussion under the guise of a preliminary objection or attempt to sever the causes of action at the interlocutory stage.
13. On the issue of joinder, the Court will need to delve into evidence to ascertain the correct position. That exercise removes the present objection from the realm of a true preliminary objection.
14. The preliminary objection is dismissed. Costs in the Cause.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 11th day of December 2014.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mrs. Ndeda instructed by Ndeda & Associates
For Respondent Mr. Mukira instructed by Mwangi Mukira & Co. Advocates