Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2015] KEELRC 732 (KLR)

Samuel Langat v Kijabe Limited [2015] KEELRC 732 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 July 2015
514 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

#

A Kenyan court threw out a dismissal claim filed 17 years late, confirming employment claims must be filed within six years.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a preliminary objection in a first-instance employment claim. Samuel Langat (Claimant) filed a Memorandum of Claim on 30 June 2014 alleging unlawful summary dismissal in 1997, seeking relief including statutory employment entitlements. Kijabe Ltd (Respondent) raised a preliminary objection that the claim was time barred and an abuse of court process; it filed no Response but submitted that under the Limitation of Actions Act a contractual claim had to be brought within six years, i.e. by 2003, whereas the suit was filed some 14 years late. The Respondent relied on Michael Maina Nderitu v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd and Fred Mudave Gogo v G4S Security Services (K) Ltd. Counsel for the Claimant countered that the monies were held in trust for the Claimant and so the limitation plea could not defeat the claim. The court held that the actionable wrong occurred upon the 1997 summary dismissal, that employment relationships are contractual and thus governed by the six-year limitation in section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and that limitation is not merely technical but jurisdictional. Absent any statutory extension or leave, the Memorandum of Claim could not survive. The preliminary objection was upheld, the Memorandum of Claim was struck out, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment was delivered in Nakuru on 24 July 2015 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Accrual of cause of action in wrongful dismissal

Holding

The cause of action accrued in 1997 when the claimant was summarily dismissed

Reasoning

The court held that an actionable wrong occurred upon the summary dismissal in 1997, and that is when time began to run under the Limitation of Actions Act. The exact month and date were not pleaded, but the year fixed accrual. Suit filed on 30 June 2014 was therefore some 13 or so years late, well beyond the six-year period.

p. 1
02

Effect of limitation on jurisdiction

Holding

A statute-barred claim cannot survive; limitation goes to jurisdiction

Reasoning

Relying on authority cited by the respondent, the court treated limitation as a substantial and jurisdictional matter rather than a mere technicality. Since no statutory provision for extension of time or leave to commence the action was invoked, the Memorandum of Claim could not stand and was struck out.

p. 2
03

Trust argument as a answer to limitation

Holding

Rejected; the pleaded trust in employment monies did not exempt the claim from limitation

Reasoning

Counsel for the claimant argued the respondent held the claimant's employment monies in trust, defeating the limitation plea. The court did not accept this and upheld the preliminary objection, implicitly rejecting the trust characterisation as a basis to escape the statutory bar.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Employment claims are contractual in nature and subject to the six-year limitation period under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
  • Limitation is a jurisdictional issue, not merely technical; a statute-barred claim cannot survive absent statutory extension or leave

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Preliminary objection upheld
  2. 2.Memorandum of Claim struck out
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Michael Maina Nderitu v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Fred Mudave Gogo v G4S Security Services (K) Ltd
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; Limitation of Actions Act, section 4(1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Langat v Kijabe Limited [2015] KEELRC 732 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/732/eng@2015-07-24

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