[2015] KEELRC 1057 (KLR)
The court held that the claim was filed six years after the termination of employment, well outside the three-year limitation period mandated by Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007. The court found that Section 90 is a substantive provision that confers temporal jurisdiction and does not allow for exceptions based...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 1057 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Mwambaji Kokota; Respondent: A.A. Transporters Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 490 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- claim struck out as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Unlawful Termination, Employment Contracts
- 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
Peter Mwambaji Kokota
Claimant
A.A. Transporters Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a claim filed outside the statutory limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claim was filed six years after the termination of employment, well outside the three-year limitation period mandated by Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007. The court found that Section 90 is a substantive provision that confers temporal jurisdiction and does not allow for exceptions based on personal hardship or geographical inaccessibility. The claimant's arguments regarding mental and financial constraints, as well as the location of the court, were rejected. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out as time-barred.
Court Disposition
claim struck out as time-barred
Orders
- The claim is hereby struck off with no order on the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. 490 OF 2014
BETWEEN
PETER MWAMBAJI KOKOTA ................................................................................... CLAIMANT
VERSUS
A.A. TRANSPORTERS LIMITED .........................................................................RESPONDENT
Rika J.
Court Assistant: Benjamin Kombe
Ms. Onyango holding brief for Ms. Kedeki Advocate instructed by Kedeki & Company Advocates for the Claimant
Mr. Nyange Advocate holding brief for Mr. Lumatete instructed by Lumatete Muchai & Company Advocates for the Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RULING
1. The Claimant filed his Statement of Claim on 9th October 2014. He worked as a Mechanic having been employed by the Respondent in 2000. He claims his contract was terminated by the Respondent in November 2008.
2. He challenges the termination decision, alleging it was unlawful, unfair, illegal and wrongful. He prays for compensation and termination benefits – total Kshs.518,400.
3. The Respondent filed its Statement of Response on 30th October 2014. The Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the same date. Objection is based on the 3-year time limit, under Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007, placed on the filing of employment claims.
4. Parties agreed this Objection be considered and determined by the Court, based on their respective Pleadings and Submissions.
The Court Finds:-
5. The Claimant does not dispute his contract was terminated in November 2008, or that he filed his Claim on 9th October 2014 – some 6 years down the line.
6. He appears to acknowledge in his submission that the Claim is governed by the Employment Act 2007. In seeking to avoid Section 90, he submits that every general rule has an exception; it is sorrowful the Employment Act 2007 does not provide exceptions; the mental and financial status of the Claimant made it difficult to approach the Court in good time; and the Industrial Court was geographically outside the Claimant's place of residence, all making it difficult to seek justice in good time.
7. The Court is full of sympathy for the Claimant, but must uphold the past decisions of the Court, which leave no room for the tampering with the strict timeframe set under Section 90 in coming to Court.
8. The Claimant cannot complain about his mental and financial constraint. The Industrial Court has always received disputes at no, or at a minimal fee. It has been user-friendly. It has always been geographically accessible, with Judges coming to Mombasa on circuit, when there was no resident Court. Section 90 is not a general rule, to which there are exceptions; it is a fundamental, substantive provision, conferring the Court temporal jurisdiction. The Claimant only has himself to blame for inaction.
9. His Claim is time-barred. The Court cannot assume jurisdiction. He approached the Court 6 years late.
IT IS ORDERED:-
(a) The Claim is hereby struck off with no order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 29th day of May 2015
James Rika
Judge