[2018] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act is clear in its terms and does not permit the extension of time for filing employment claims after the limitation period has expired, except in cases founded on tort. The applicant's previous suit was dismissed for being improperly filed, and despite being...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: William Kipchirchir Kipsat; Respondent: Telkom Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 161 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Extension of Time, 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
William Kipchirchir Kipsat
Applicant
Telkom Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing an employment claim after the limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act has lapsed.
- 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing a proper claim after the initial suit was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act is clear in its terms and does not permit the extension of time for filing employment claims after the limitation period has expired, except in cases founded on tort. The applicant's previous suit was dismissed for being improperly filed, and despite being represented by counsel, no satisfactory explanation was provided for the failure to file a proper claim within the prescribed time. The court found no merit in the application and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC APP 161 OF 2017
WILLIAM KIPCHIRCHIR KIPSAT.....................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TELKOM KENYA.............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Section 90 of the Employment Act does not seem to yield an interpretation that time to file suit can be extended once it has lapsed. The only cases where extension of time is permissible after limitation period has lapsed is with regard to claims founded on tort.
2. In the motion before me, the applicant stated that he filed a suit in 2011 which was dismissed by Justice Rika for being improperly filed. From the record, the claimant was represented by an advocate. Whereas the court sympathizes with the allegations that the claimant has been of ill-health no explanation has been given why counsel did not take cue from the advice of the learned Judge to file a proper claim.
3. The application is therefore found lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
4. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 9th day of February, 2018
ABUODHA J. N.
JUDGE
Delivered this 9th day of February, 2018
In the presence of:-
........................for the claimant
................ for the Respondent
ABUODHA J. N.
JUDGE