Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) v Dagoretti Children’s Centre & another [2014] KEELRC 1330 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment claim filed ten years after dismissal failed because earlier settlements and court decisions meant the matter was already concluded.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is statute barred
Not time barred on the facts, as the matter had been under adjudication of one form or another since 2002
The Respondent argued the claim filed in 2012 was 10 years after the 2002 cause of action. The court traced the history: a magistrates' court case, two labour disputes, a referral to the Industrial Court in 2009 and a dismissed application for leave to sue as a pauper. Given this continuous adjudication, it would not be proper to hold the case time barred, though individual heads (like overtime) were subject to shorter limitation periods.
Whether the claim is res judicata
Susan Wanjiku Kimani's claim is res judicata; Esther Wanjiku's claim is settled
The Grievants' claims had been concluded at the Labour office on 5th March 2002 upon acceptance of payment, again in 2005 by a further payment of Kshs.8,800, and by the rulings of Hon. Okundi SRM (15th February 2006) and Hon. Gichohi SRM in CMCC No. 13269 of 2003. No appeals were preferred against those decisions, so the matters stood concluded.
Whether the claim has been settled
The Grievants' claims were settled by payments of terminal benefits pursuant to labour disputes
Both Grievants were paid terminal benefits of Kshs.4,560 and Kshs.2,920 respectively on 5th March 2002 before a Labour Officer, and Susan Wanjiku received a further Kshs.8,800 in 2005. Her subsequent court claim for severance and notice was dismissed, and a pauper application was dismissed for disclosing no cause of action. The court found the claims settled or time barred.
Whether the Grievants are entitled to the remedies sought
Not entitled to any of the prayers sought; the claim was dismissed
Since the claims had been settled or were res judicata or out of time, none of the remedies - declarations of unfair termination, reinstatement, compensation of Kshs.9,913,170, or refund of court costs - could issue. Reinstatement was additionally barred by Section 12(3)(vii) of the Industrial Court Act which prohibits reinstatement more than 3 years after dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- A claim that has been under adjudication of one form or another since the cause of action arose cannot properly be characterised as time barred
- Acceptance of payment in settlement before a Labour Officer, and subsequent court rulings not appealed against, render claims res judicata or settled
- Reinstatement may not be granted more than three years after termination or dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's case is dismissed
- 2.No orders for costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court Act, 2011 (Article 162(2) of the Constitution implied); claim referred under the Trade Disputes Act framework
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary & Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) v Dagoretti Children’s Centre & another [2014] KEELRC 1330 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Memorandum of Claim dated 7th September 2012 (filed 11th September 2012) - case number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1330/eng@2014-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.