[2016] KEELRC 1211 (KLR)
The court found that the claim for underpayment of salary and shift allowances was based on a continuing breach of the employment contract, which only ceased upon the claimants' retrenchment in October 2014. Section 90 of the Employment Act provides that in cases of continuing injury or damage, the limitation period...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1211 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Washington Omolo Owino; Respondent: Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 596 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (application to Strike Out Parts of Claim as Time Barred)
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Continuing Breach, Salary Underpayment, Retrenchment, 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
Washington Omolo Owino
Claimant
Rift Valley Railways (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (application to Strike Out Parts of Claim as Time Barred)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim for salary underpayment was filed within the statutory limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the continuing breach doctrine applies to the claim for underpayment and shift allowances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claim for underpayment of salary and shift allowances was based on a continuing breach of the employment contract, which only ceased upon the claimants' retrenchment in October 2014. Section 90 of the Employment Act provides that in cases of continuing injury or damage, the limitation period is twelve months from the cessation of the breach. Since the suit was filed on 13 August 2015, within ten months of the cessation of the breach, it was within the statutory limitation period. The respondent's argument that only claims arising within twelve months prior to the filing date were actionable was rejected as misconceived. The court held that the entire claim was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 9.11.2015 is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO.596 OF 2015
WASHINGTON OMOLO OWINO…………...........…………………………….CLAIMANT
VS
RIFT VALLEY RAILWAYS (K) LTD……………………….……………….RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
The application before the court is the respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 9. 11. 2015. It is brought under Article 159(1) 8(2) and Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 90 of the Employment Act (EA), Section 3, 12 and 20 (1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (ELRCA), Order 2 Rule 15 (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs), inherent powers of the court and all other enabling laws. The Motion seeks for the striking out of paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11,12,13,14 and 17(c) of the statement of claim for being time barred and for disclosing no cause of action in law. The said paragraphs relate to salary arrears resulting from under payments.
The Motion by the claimants through the replying affidavits dated 1. 2.2016. According to the claimants, the under payment was a continuous breach of their employment contract that stretched from 2006 to October 2014 when they were retrenched. That under section 90 of the EA, the cause of action for their continuing breach or injury through under payment was to last upto October 2015 being 12 months from the date of termination being October 2014. That they filed their suits on 13. 8.2015 before the lapse of the said 12 months limitation period.
The Motion was disposed of by written submissions.
Analysis and Determination
After careful consideration of the pleadings, Motion, the Replying affidavit and the rival submissions, it is clear that the cause of action involves under payment of salary to the claimant from 2006 till October 2014. There is no dispute that the breach by the respondent was continuing breach. There is also no dispute that the claimants were retrenched in October 2014 and filed their suits on 13. 8.2015. The issue for determination is whether the claim for the salary under payment was filed out of time.
Time barred claim
Section 90 of the Employment Act provides that:
“Not withstanding the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Limitations
of Actions Act Cap 22, no civil action or proceedings based arising
out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be
instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the
act, neglect or default complained or in the case of continuing
injury or damage within twelve months next after the ceasation
thereof.”
The applicant submitted in part that:-
“…Since the allegation of underpayment and unpaid accrued shift
allowances were of continuing nature the claimant should have
filed his claim within 12 months after ceasation thus the claimant
can only claim based on allegations that occurred within 12 months
prior to 13th August 2015 that is 13th August 2014 anything outside
the said duration is contrary to section 90 of the Employment Act
and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.”
With due respect, the foregoing submissions by the applicant is not correct in relations to the facts of this case. It is therefore dismissed for being misconceived and invalid. The correct position is that the cause of action arose in October 2014 when the claimants were retrenched and was to expire in October 2015 which is 12 months from the time when the continuing default by the respondent to pay shift allowances and underpaid salary cease. The suit herein were filled on 13. 8.2015 which was on the tenth month after the ceasartion of the default complained. Consequently the court finds and holds that the suits were filed within the statutory limitation period and are properly before the court.
Disposition
The respondent’s Motion dated 9. 11. 2015 is dismissed. Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Mombasa this 6th day of May 2016.
HON. ONESMUS MAKAU
JUDGE