Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2015] KEELRC 51 (KLR)

Kenya Petroleum Workers Union v Total (K) Limited [2015] KEELRC 51 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
9 December 2015
546 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An 18-year delay killed this unfair dismissal claim because Kenyan law gives only six years to sue on employment contracts, and conciliation barely pauses that clock.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, Total Kenya Limited, raised a preliminary objection against a claim filed on 18 November 2013 by the Claimant on behalf of grievant Lawrence Paul Macharia Mutero, whose employment was terminated by letter dated 18 September 1995. The grievant appealed internally, then referred the dispute to the Joint Industrial Council, which in early 1996 recommended reinstatement that was never implemented. The dispute was reported to the Ministry of Labour on 18 October 1996 and a Conciliator appointed on 13 February 1997, but the process stalled due to the Respondent's non-co-operation. The court framed two issues: whether time runs during statutory conciliation under the repealed Trade Disputes Act, and whether the dispute was time barred. Applying Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the court held that suits founded on contract must be filed within six years of the cause of action, that the Act permits no extension of time for contract claims, and that no leave to file out of time had been sought. Any suspension of the limitation period during statutory conciliation was confined to the thirty days within which the Conciliator is mandated to act. The union's failure to file in time could not be excused by the conciliation process, notwithstanding the inordinate delay. The preliminary objection was upheld and the suit dismissed in its entirety. Costs were nonetheless refused because the Respondent was largely responsible for the delay in conciliation and the late filing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether time continues to run during statutory conciliation under the (repealed) Trade Disputes Act

Holding

Time is suspended only during the statutory thirty-day period within which the Conciliator must investigate and report or issue a certificate of unresolved dispute

Reasoning

The court accepted only the thirty-day statutory window as excluded from the limitation period. The conciliation here was prolonged, largely due to the Respondent's non-co-operation, but any suspension beyond thirty days has no statutory basis. The parties therefore could not rely on the conciliation process to excuse a filing made more than eighteen years after termination.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit is time barred

Holding

Yes. The suit, founded on contract and filed more than eighteen years after the cause of action, exceeded the six-year limit under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and no leave to file out of time was sought or available

Reasoning

Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act requires contract suits to be filed within six years. The Act does not permit extension of time for contract claims, and the Claimant never applied for leave to file out of time. The suit, filed over eighteen years after the 1995 termination, was therefore statute barred and liable to dismissal on preliminary objection.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Suits founded on contract must be filed within six years from the date the cause of action arose and the court cannot extend time for such suits under the Limitation of Actions Act
  • Statutory conciliation only suspends the limitation period for the thirty days within which the Conciliator is mandated to investigate the dispute
  • It is incumbent on a grievant and his union representatives to heed the limitation period and file the suit in time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is upheld and the suit is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Trade Disputes Act (repealed)Not specified (statutory conciliation provisions)
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction exercised under the Industrial Court's employment and labour relations jurisdiction; limitation governed by the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, and the repealed Trade Disputes Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Petroleum Workers Union v Total (K) Limited [2015] KEELRC 51 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/51/eng@2015-12-09

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