Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition No 44 of 2014· [2015] KEELRC 283 (KLR)

Chalres Muchem Karuru v National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation & another [2015] KEELRC 283 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 October 2015
MNMathews Nderi Nduma
1,810 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

#

The Employment Court dismissed a wrongful termination claim filed more than six years late, confirming Kenya's six-year time limit applies even to constitutional petitions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, formerly Head of Finance and Human Resources at the 1st Respondent, brought a constitutional petition filed on 25 June 2014 challenging his termination of employment dated 8 February 2008. He sought declarations that the termination was illegal, null and void, unfair and unconstitutional, together with arrears of salary and benefits, six months' pay in lieu of notice, general damages for contravention of Article 77 of the repealed Constitution, twelve months' salary compensation, reinstatement or payment of the remainder of his contract, costs and interest. He alleged discrimination, violation of his right to fair administrative and disciplinary action, failure to follow the Respondent's disciplinary procedures, and non-payment of terminal benefits. The 1st Respondent, in a replying affidavit sworn by its Acting Managing Director Evans Ngibuini, maintained the termination was lawful, that terminal benefits had been paid, and urged dismissal of the Petition as an abuse of process. Before reaching the merits, the court observed that the cause of action arose on 8 February 2008 and the Petition was filed more than six years later, with no application for extension of time under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. Characterising the claim as a typical unfair termination claim disguised as a constitutional petition, and applying a Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over a contract-based suit filed out of time. It further found the Petition defective for not pleading specific constitutional violations and for concealing payments already made, and dismissed the entire Petition with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation of actions in employment claims dressed as constitutional petitions

Holding

A typical claim for unlawful and unfair termination of employment premised on a contract of employment is subject to the six-year limitation period for suits founded on contract; the ELRC lacks jurisdiction to entertain it after limitation lapses

Reasoning

The court held the termination occurred on 8 February 2008 and the Petition was filed on 25 June 2014, more than six years later, without any application for extension of time. Relying on a Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997, the court held its hands were tied. The court further noted the Petition did not disclose specific constitutional provisions violated and lacked bona fides by omitting terminal benefits already paid.

p. 4
02

Sufficiency of the constitutional petition

Holding

The Petition was defective for failing to disclose in specific terms the constitutional provisions allegedly violated

Reasoning

Even aside from the limitation bar, the court observed that the Petition did not plead with specificity the constitutional provisions and allegations of violation of rights said to necessitate the filing. It also noted nondisclosure of terminal benefits paid upon redeployment and termination, undermining the Petition's bona fides. These defects provided independent grounds for dismissal alongside the limitation bar.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • No action founded on contract may be brought, and no court may entertain such an action, six years after the cause of action accrued under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire Petition is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Water Act2000
  • Employment Act, Cap 226 (now repealed)null
  • Employment Act, 2007null
  • Constitution of Kenya, 1963 (now repealed)Article 77
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010null

Cases cited (1)

  • Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; suit dismissed for being time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chalres Muchem Karuru v National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation & another [2015] KEELRC 283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Petition No 44 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/283/eng@2015-10-30

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