[2018] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner's claims for refund of unremitted salary deductions and payment of transfer allowance were employment contractual claims, not constitutional violations. These claims arose between 2009 and June 2011 and should have been filed within three years, as required by section 90 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1475 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Odongo Obura; Respondent: The Secretary of the County Government of Siaya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 13 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Employment Contracts, Salary Deductions, Transfer Allowance, Constitutional Rights, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Employment Contracts Salary Deductions Transfer Allowance Constitutional Rights 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Odongo Obura

Applicant

The Secretary of the County Government of Siaya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner's claims for unremitted salary deductions and transfer allowance are statute-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the claims, framed as constitutional violations, can circumvent statutory limitation periods.
  3. 3 Whether a cause of action is disclosed against the Secretary of the County Government of Siaya.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner's claims for refund of unremitted salary deductions and payment of transfer allowance were employment contractual claims, not constitutional violations. These claims arose between 2009 and June 2011 and should have been filed within three years, as required by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The petitioner filed the claim in 2017, well outside the limitation period. The attempt to frame the claims as constitutional violations was deemed an abuse of court process intended to circumvent the statutory bar. Furthermore, the court held that no cause of action was disclosed against the Secretary of the County Government of Siaya, as the proper party...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed for being statute-barred and lacking merit.
  • No order as to costs.