Case Law[2013] KEIC 619Kenya
Allan Mwasoke Checha & others v M.J. Clerk Ltd (Cause 140 of 2013) [2013] KEIC 619 (KLR) (26 August 2013) (Ruling)
Industrial Court of Kenya
Judgment
Allan Mwasoke Checha & others v M.J. Clerk Ltd (Cause 140 of 2013) [2013] KEIC 619 (KLR) (26 August 2013) (Ruling)
Allan Mwasoke Checha & others v M.J. Clerk Ltd [2013] eKLR
Neutral citation: [2013] KEIC 619 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Industrial Court at Mombasa
Cause 140 of 2013
ON Makau, J
August 26, 2013
Between
Allan Mwasoke Checha & others
Claimant
and
M.J. Clerk Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1.This is a ruling on a Preliminary Objection (P.O.) filed on 3/7/2013 by the respondent challenging the claimants suit for being filed out of time.
2.The P.O. came up for hearing on 17/7/2013 when the parties agreed to dispose it of by way of written submissions. As at the time when the court went to write the ruling only the respondent had filed her submissions. It would appear that the Preliminary Objection was not opposed by the claimants.
3.The gravamen of the P.O. Is that the suit herein was filed out of time in view of Section 90 of the [Employment Act](/akn/ke/act/2007/11) 2007 which limits the period for employment claims to 3 years. That such statutory period is not extendable. In the present case the cause of action arose in February 2006 and according to the respondent the claimants had upto February 2009 to bring this suit.
4.The court disagrees with that view because the cause of action arose before the 2007 [Employment Act](/akn/ke/act/2007/11), hence the claimant had the right to sue upto a period of 6 years under Section 4 of the Limitations of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya. That means that the claimant had upto February 2012 to file their claim.
5.However they waited upto June 2013 to bring the suit which was over one year late. Whichever way you look at it, whether under Section 90 of the [Employment Act](/akn/ke/act/2007/11) 2007 or Section 4 of the Limitations of Actions Act, the suit was filed out of time.
6.It follows therefore that the suit is declared incompetent and bad in law. That incompetence due to statutory limitations goes to negate the courts jurisdiction over the suit. Consequently the suit is struck out with no orders as to costs.
**SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 26TH AUGUST 2013****ONESMUS MAKAU****JUDGE**
Similar Cases
Abiero v KK Security Ltd (Cause 296 of 2013) [2014] KEIC 750 (KLR) (20 June 2014) (Ruling)
[2014] KEIC 750Industrial Court of Kenya78% similar
Kweyu v Wananchi Marine Products (K) Ltd (Cause 23 of 2014) [2014] KEIC 801 (KLR) (5 December 2014) (Ruling)
[2014] KEIC 801Industrial Court of Kenya78% similar
Mwanyika & 18 others v Papillion Diani Limited (Cause 109 of 2012) [2014] KEIC 766 (KLR) (11 July 2014) (Ruling)
[2014] KEIC 766Industrial Court of Kenya78% similar
Seven Seas Technologies Limited v Chege (Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2013) [2014] KEIC 110 (KLR) (7 March 2014) (Ruling)
[2014] KEIC 110Industrial Court of Kenya77% similar
Mbugua v Rafiki Dtm [K] Ltd (Cause 180 of 2013) [2014] KEIC 857 (KLR) (24 February 2014) (Ruling)
[2014] KEIC 857Industrial Court of Kenya76% similar