Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No 2000 of 2013· [2014] KEELRC 310 (KLR)

Eliud Gatundu Wanjohi & 3 others v Kenya Railways Corporation [2014] KEELRC 310 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
25 July 2014
DMD.K. Njagi Marete
1,634 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that an employer's written admission of a salary claim can restart the limitation clock, allowing a 20-year-old dispute to proceed to trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, former employees of Kenya Railways Corporation, sued by a statement of claim dated 4th December 2013 seeking rectification of what they alleged was an erroneous computation of their salaries based on wrong salary scales. The respondent filed a preliminary objection dated 6th January 2014 contending that the claim, filed some twenty years after the events, was time barred under Section 87(b) of the Kenya Railways Act and Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, and that the court lacked jurisdiction. It argued that as a state corporation it keeps records for only six years and would be prejudiced at trial, and relied on its own prior decision in Joyce Kavulani Ligame and on Langat v Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation. The claimants countered that they had long engaged the respondent through correspondence and meetings, including a letter of 18th September 2012 in which the respondent admitted miscalculation and undertook to pay arrears, invoking Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act on acknowledgement of claims. They also relied on authority that striking out pleadings is drastic, and on Gikonyo J.'s holding in Kenya Orient Insurance v Oraro that limitation is a matter of law and fact unsuitable for determination in limine. The court found the prior authorities distinguishable because of the 2012-2013 negotiations, held that limitation requires factual interrogation and evidence, and dismissed the preliminary objection with costs to the claimants, clearing the way for the suit to proceed to trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim was statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act and Section 87 of the Kenya Railways Act

Holding

No - the respondent's acknowledgement of the claim in correspondence in 2012 and 2013 revived the right of action and defeated the time bar plea

Reasoning

The claimants showed correspondence and meetings from 2012 and 2013 in which the respondent admitted miscalculation of salaries and undertook to consider payment of arrears. Under Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act, acknowledgement of a debt accrues the right of action afresh from the date of acknowledgement. The negotiations unsettled limitation in the claimants' favour, and the respondent's plea of destroyed records could not defeat rights.

p. 3
02

Whether limitation could be determined as a preliminary objection

Holding

No - limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence at trial

Reasoning

The court adopted Gikonyo J.'s dictum in Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd v Oraro & Co. Advocates that limitation is both a matter of law and fact, requiring evidence and evaluation of the parties' factual positions. The prior authorities relied on by the respondent were distinguishable because here the parties negotiated in 2012 and 2013.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Acknowledgement of a claim by the defendant during negotiations defeats a plea of limitation
  • Limitation of actions is a matter of both law and fact and cannot be resolved as a preliminary objection

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Kenya Railways ActSection 87(b)
  • Employment Act, No. 11 of 2007Section 90
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Chapter 22Section 23(3)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Joyce Kavulani Ligame vs Kenya Railway Corporation
    Industrial Court Cause No. 483 of 2012 (unreported)
  • Langat Vs Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation
    (2000) EA/147
  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Vs Peter Kimani
  • D.T. Dobie v Muchina
    (1982)
  • Afrofreight Forwarders Ltd Vs. African Liner Agencies
    Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2007
  • Kenya Orient Insurance Limited Vs. Oraro and Company Advocates
    Misc. Cause No. 701 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; disputed by respondent's preliminary objection

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eliud Gatundu Wanjohi & 3 others v Kenya Railways Corporation [2014] KEELRC 310 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No 2000 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/310/eng@2014-07-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.