Murabu Chaka Tsuma v Maersk Kenya Limited [2015] KEELRC 800 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)

25 June 2015

HWHellen Wasilwa

634 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's employment court dismissed an attempt to strike out a claim as time-barred, holding that court vacation periods don't count toward the six-year filing deadline.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection contending that the Claimant's suit was time barred, having been instituted outside the six-year limitation period under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and sought that the suit be struck out with costs. The cause of action arose on 20th November 2006 when the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct under the then-operative repealed Employment Act (Chapter 226), which contained no limitation provision. The Claimant filed suit on 21st March 2013. The Respondents relied on Peter Musembi Nzioki v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited, where a claim filed long after the cause of action was held time barred. The Claimant opposed, citing Keziah Stella Pyman v Paul Mwololo Mutevu, in which Justice J. A. Ouko, applying Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, held that the period between 21st December and January in the following year is omitted from computation of time. The court applied Order 50 Rule 4, excluding 42 days in each of five years (210 days), which extended the limitation deadline from 19th November 2012 to about June 2013. It therefore found that the claim filed in March 2013 was within time, dismissed the preliminary objection as without merit, and allowed the case to proceed to hearing, with a hearing date to be taken at the registry. The ruling was delivered in open court on 25th June 2015 by Justice Hellen Wasilwa.

Key legal issues

Whether the claim was time barred under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

The claim filed on 21st March 2013 was within time once the December–January vacation periods were excluded from the computation, which extended the deadline from 19th November 2012 to about June 2013

Reasoning

The cause of action arose on 20th November 2006 upon dismissal, and the strict six-year period expired on 19th November 2012. However, applying Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Justice Ouko's holding in the Paul Mwololo case, the court excluded 42 days per year over five years (210 days), extending the deadline to about June 2013. The suit filed in March 2013 was therefore within time.

p. 2

Legal principles established

In computing the limitation period for filing a claim, the period between 21st December and 13th January is omitted from the computation under Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Court orders

1.The Preliminary Objection is dismissed as without merit
2.The case is allowed to proceed for hearing
3.A hearing date to be taken in the normal course at the registry

Authorities

Legislation

Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)(a)
Employment Act (repealed), Chapter 226 Laws of KenyaGeneral
Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 4

Cases cited (2)

Peter Musembi Nzioki vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
(2013) eKLR
Keziah Stella Pyman & 2 others v Paul Mwololo Mutevu & 8 others
Civil Appeal (NAI) No. 42 of 2013

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment and labour relations jurisdiction; claim founded in contract under the repealed Employment Act (Chapter 226)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murabu Chaka Tsuma v Maersk Kenya Limited [2015] KEELRC 800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/800/eng@2015-06-25

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