Paul Chiuri Muriuki v Kenyatta National Hospital [2015] KEELRC 168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a wrongful dismissal suit filed over three years late, confirming that the three-year time limit under section 90 of the Employment Act is strict.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Yes. The cause of action arose on 19th July 2011 when the Claimant was summarily dismissed, and complaints of unfair termination should have been filed on or before 20th July 2014; the suit filed on 18th November 2014 is out of time and not sustainable.
Section 90 of the Employment Act imposes a three-year limitation period for employment claims. The court followed Peter Nyamai v M J Clarke Limited in holding this a statutory requirement rather than a procedural issue. The Claimant admitted suspension without cause and summary dismissal on 19th July 2011, so the claim filed in November 2014 was way out of time and the court's jurisdiction was ousted by the mandatory statutory provision.
Whether Articles 47 and 159 of the Constitution could cure the time lapse
No. Articles 47 (fair administrative action) and 159 (judicial style) were not intended to cure a time lapse, and invoking them after knowingly filing out of time is a misapplication of the Constitution.
The court held that where a claimant has good reasons for delay, the proper course was to first move the court for appropriate direction or leave before filing. Filing out of time and then invoking constitutional provisions to overcome the statutory bar is a misapplication of those articles. The limitation is a matter regulated by law, not a procedural technicality, and cannot be cured by Article 159(2) or the advocate's negligence.
Whether the alleged professional misconduct of the Claimant's advocate excused the delay
No. The court did not accept this as a basis to save the claim, holding that the Claimant should have first sought the court's direction on the time lapse instead of filing the suit and then invoking the Constitution.
The Claimant blamed his former advocate, Oundu Nelson Hezron, whose conduct was reported to the Law Society of Kenya, and argued that a mistake of counsel should not be visited on the client under Article 159(2). The court did not rule on the advocate's conduct as such, but held that a claimant with good reasons for the delay ought to have moved the court first for leave before filing the out-of-time suit.
Legal principles established
#- The three-year limitation period in section 90 of the Employment Act is a statutory requirement, not a procedural matter, and ousts the court's jurisdiction over claims filed out of time
- A party who files a suit knowing the claim is out of time cannot invoke Articles 47 and 159 of the Constitution to cure the lapse; leave should first have been sought from the Court
- An employee aggrieved by summary dismissal has up to three years to challenge it before the Employment and Labour Relations Court under section 90 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The objections by the Respondent succeed
- 2.The suit is dismissed
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act, 2007; objections founded on section 90 of the Employment Act and section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Chiuri Muriuki v Kenyatta National Hospital [2015] KEELRC 168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/168/eng@2015-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.