George Amoth & 14 others v Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri) [2016] KEELRC 464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a 20-year-old casual employment claim because contract suits must be filed within strict time limits that courts cannot extend.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim is statute barred
The claim for casual employment between 1986 and 1993, filed in 2013, is bad in law on its face for contravening section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act and section 90 of the Employment Act
The claims relate to casual employment between 1986 and 1993, more than 20 years before suit was filed in 2013. Section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act requires contract claims to be brought within 6 years, and section 90 of the Employment Act bars civil proceedings founded on contract of service not brought within 3 years. The Claimants filed suit without seeking leave to file out of time, rendering the claim statute barred and bad in law on the face of it.
Whether the court could extend time under section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act
No jurisdiction to extend time exists in contract claims; the extension provision applies only to tort claims such as negligence, nuisance and breach of duty
Relying on Mary Osundwa v Nzoia Sugar Company Limited, the court held that section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act does not give jurisdiction to extend time in claims founded on contract. Even had the Claimants applied for leave, the court would have lacked jurisdiction to grant it. Section 28 requires an application before commencement of the action, which was not made.
Legal principles established
#- Section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act does not confer jurisdiction on the court to extend time for filing suit out of time in cases involving contract or any cause of action other than tort
- Jurisdiction is the bedrock of any court decision; without it a court's findings are a nullity
- A claim extinguished by expiry of the limitation period cannot be entertained by the court
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out as bad in law for being filed out of time without leave
- 2.No orders for costs - each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act and Employment Act considered; suit transferred from the High Court by order dated 2nd October 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Teachers Service Commission v Suji (Appeal 5 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2923 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2923 (KLR)16 Nov 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Amoth & 14 others v Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri) [2016] KEELRC 464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment (originally Kisumu HCC No. 23 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/464/eng@2016-09-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.