[2001] KEHC 30 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action for unlawful dismissal arose in July 1994, but the suit was not filed until May 24, 2000, well beyond the twelve-month limitation period prescribed by section 109(7) of the Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation Act. The court held that the limitation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 30 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Remington Mwaki; Defendant: Telkom Kenya Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 807 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit as Time Barred
- Outcome
- suit struck out as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Dismissal, Limitation of Actions, 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
Remington Mwaki
Plaintiff
Telkom Kenya Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit as Time Barred
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit for unlawful dismissal is time-barred under section 109(7) of the Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation Act.
- 2 Whether the limitation period applies to contracts of employment and their termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action for unlawful dismissal arose in July 1994, but the suit was not filed until May 24, 2000, well beyond the twelve-month limitation period prescribed by section 109(7) of the Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation Act. The court held that the limitation period applies to employment contracts and their termination, as established in Joel Kiprono Langat v Kenya Posts & Telecommunication Corporation. The repeal and re-enactment of the Act did not affect the limitation provision's application to this case. Consequently, the suit was time-barred and could not be sustained.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as time-barred
Orders
- The suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.
- The defendant is awarded costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 807 of 2000
REMINGTON MWAKI…………………................……………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TELKOM KENYA LTD…………….....................….…………………..DEFENDANT
RULING
This is the defendants application for an order that the plaintiffs suit be struck out as it is time barred.
The plaintiffs counsel did not file a replying affidavit.
Plaintiff seeks relief’s for unlawful dismissal from employment. He pleads in paragraph 5 of the amended plaint that he was dismissed by a letter dated 20. 7.94. Defendants pleads in para 6 of the Defence that suit offends the mandatory provisions of section 109(7) of the Kenya Posts and Telecommunications corporation Act – Cap 411 (now repeated) under that section an action or legal proceedings do not lie against the corporation unless it is commenced within twelve months, next after the act complained of.
Applicants counsel relies on the case of Joel Kiprono Langat versus Kenya Posts & Telecommunication Corporation – Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1999.
That decision shows among other things that contracts of employment and termination of such contracts falls within the limitation period in section 109(b) of the Act.
The Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation has been repealed and re-enacted. The new Act Kenya communications Act – 1998 in Section 98(b) of the Interpretation are General Provisions Act the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the Kenya Post and Telecommunications Act.
The cause of action arose in July 1994. The present suit was filed on 24. 5.2000. by August 1995 the cause of action had been time-barred. The suit has been brought more than 5 years out of time. The action does not lie.
Consequently, I allow the application with costs and strike out the suit with costs to defendants.
E. M. GithinjiJUDGE
3. 10. 2001
Mr. Kituku for defendant present
Mr. Mwiti for plaintiff absent