Rosebellah Jepkoech Ronoh v Telkom Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 662 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a criminal acquittal does not pause employment claim deadlines — time runs from termination, so this 8-year-late claim was dismissed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether limitation began to run on termination or only on acquittal in the criminal case
Time began to run on the date of termination; the pending criminal case did not bar commencement of a civil claim
The court held that civil proceedings need not await criminal proceedings, and an acquittal is no bar to a civil suit. Citing Abdulla Ramadhan v Suleiman Haji, it found that the claimant could have filed his claim at any stage within the permissible time and that saying time stopped because of the criminal case was a wrong interpretation of the law.
Retrospectivity of section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
The Employment Act, 2007 does not apply retrospectively to contracts terminated before commencement; the transitional provisions point to the repealed Trade Disputes Act regime
The court noted the law applicable at termination was the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, and that the 2007 Act only amends subsisting contracts construed as if made under it. The dispute, arising in 2002, should have been resolved under the Trade Disputes Act, Cap 234 per sections 84 of the Labour Relations Act and 93 of the Employment Act.
Whether good grounds existed for extension of time
None were advanced; the claim filed over 8 years after termination had lapsed and the delay was not excusable
The court acknowledged the law exists to assist parties with good reasons who cannot come to court in good time, but found this was not such a case. Nothing prevented the claimant from filing within time, and the respondent had done nothing admitting the claim to extend the limitation period.
Legal principles established
#- An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not suspend or postpone the running of limitation for a related civil claim; time runs from the date of termination
- The Employment Act, 2007 has no retrospective application to contracts of service terminated before its commencement
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is upheld
- 2.The application dated 17th April 2012 is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41, 162 and 165 of the Constitution; Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act; Section 20(1) of the Industrial Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Newton Muli Mbatha v CMC Motors Group Limited [2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)11 Mar 2016
- Newton Muli Mbatha v CMC Motors Group Limited [2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)11 Mar 2016followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rosebellah Jepkoech Ronoh v Telkom Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 662 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/662/eng@2013-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.