Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1155 of 2013 (Industrial Court)· [2014] KEELRC 370 (KLR)

Kenya Airways Limited v Donald Osewe Oluoch [2014] KEELRC 370 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
11 July 2014
863 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court allowed Kenya Airways' late employment claim because time spent suing in the wrong court doesn't count against the six-year deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Kenya Airways, sued its former employee, Donald Obewe (Osewe), for breach of a training sponsorship bond after he resigned on 25th June 2007, despite an appointment letter dated 23rd November 2006 binding him to three years' service following training the airline sponsored at a cost of Kshs. 8 million. The suit was filed at the Industrial Court on 23rd August 2013, over six years after the cause of action arose. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection on two grounds: that the claim was statute-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and Section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act; and that the Claimant was estopped from litigating before the Industrial Court because it had earlier opposed the transfer of Milimani HCCC No. 754 of 2009, a suit between the same parties over the same subject matter, which was dismissed on appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court disposed of the estoppel argument first, holding that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel and may be raised by the court suo moto. It further held that Section 90 of the Employment Act, which commenced in August 2008, cannot apply retroactively to a 2007 cause of action, so the Limitation of Actions Act governs. Applying the rule excluding time spent prosecuting, in good faith, a proceeding in a court without jurisdiction, the court found that the period the earlier High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings were pending did not count towards limitation. The suit was therefore filed within time, and the preliminary objection was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Retroactivity of Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

Section 90 does not apply to a cause of action arising before the Act commenced operation in August 2008; Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 governs, with a six-year limitation period for contract claims.

Reasoning

The cause of action arose on 25th June 2007 upon the Respondent's resignation in breach of a training sponsorship bond. The Employment Act 2007 only commenced in August 2008, so its three-year limitation period in Section 90 cannot apply retroactively. The applicable law is therefore the Limitation of Actions Act, whose six-year period for contract claims had arguably expired by the time of filing in August 2013.

p. 2
02

Estoppel and jurisdiction

Holding

There can be no estoppel against an objection on jurisdiction; the court may raise jurisdiction suo moto.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the Claimant was estopped from filing in the Industrial Court because it had earlier resisted transfer of the High Court suit to the Industrial Court, which was later dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court held that jurisdiction goes to the root and cannot be conferred by conduct or waiver; a court must examine jurisdiction even suo moto and must strike out a suit where it lacks jurisdiction.

p. 1
03

Exclusion of time spent prosecuting a suit in a court without jurisdiction

Holding

Time spent prosecuting the earlier High Court suit (HCCC No. 754 of 2009), which concerned the same parties and subject matter and was struck out for want of jurisdiction, is excluded from the computation of limitation.

Reasoning

Applying the principle in K.J. Tomji's treatise on limitation, the court held that time during which a plaintiff diligently and in good faith prosecutes another civil proceeding against the same defendant on the same cause of action, in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction, is excluded. Although the claim was filed more than six years after the cause of action, the period the matter was pending at the High Court and Court of Appeal did not run. The suit was thus filed within time.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • There can be no estoppel against an objection on jurisdiction; a court must raise lack of jurisdiction suo moto and, if it lacks jurisdiction, must strike out the suit.
  • Provisions of the Employment Act, 2007 (which came into operation in August 2008) cannot be applied retroactively to a cause of action arising in June 2007; the applicable limitation law is Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22.
  • Where a plaintiff prosecutes with due diligence, in good faith, another civil proceeding founded on the same cause of action in a court lacking jurisdiction, the time spent on that proceeding is excluded in computing limitation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection in limine is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 27 and 28

Cases cited (1)

  • Timothy M. Mukato Vs. Reuben Alubale Shiramba and 3 others
    Nairobi HCCC Misc. Application 696 of 2004
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Employment Act and the court's founding statute; suit filed on 23rd August 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (6)

#

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, "Kenya Airways Limited v Donald Osewe Oluoch [2014] KEELRC 370 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 1155 of 2013 (Industrial Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/370/eng@2014-07-11

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