Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review Application No. 31 of 2013 (related); Notice of Motion dated 09.09.2016· [2016] KEELRC 541 (KLR)

Geoffrey Kiragu Njogu v Public Service Commission & another [2016] KEELRC 541 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 October 2016
449 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it cannot extend the strict 3-year deadline for employment claims, dismissing a late petition challenging a public service retirement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the court by notice of motion filed on 09.09.2016 seeking leave to file a petition out of time challenging his dismissal from the public service. The respondents, through litigation counsel for the Attorney General, filed a preliminary objection contending that the intended suit was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits arising from contracts of employment, and that the claim was otherwise bad in law. By an amended notice of preliminary objection, the respondents added a res judicata ground based on a judgment in Judicial Review Application No. 31 of 2013 at Kerugoya, subsequently upheld in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2014 at Nyeri. The court found that the applicant was retired in the public interest by letter dated 08.01.2008, so the three-year period expired on or about 08.01.2011. The applicant failed to establish any legal provision permitting the court to extend the limitation period. Relying on Attorney General v Andrew Maina Githinji (per Waki JA), the court held that section 90 is in mandatory terms and no leave could issue for filing out of time. The preliminary objection therefore succeeded on the limitation ground alone, and the court declined to consider the res judicata issue. Noting the belated filing of the amended objection, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs. The application was dismissed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended suit challenging retirement in the public interest is time barred

Holding

The suit is time barred; the 3-year limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act lapsed on or about 08.01.2011 and no provision for extension was established

Reasoning

The applicant was retired in the public interest by letter dated 08.01.2008. Three years from that decision lapsed on or about 08.01.2011. The applicant did not establish any legal provision under which the court could exercise discretion to extend the prescribed limitation period. Section 90 is mandatory and precludes leave for an out-of-time suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the preliminary objection succeeds

Holding

The preliminary objection succeeds on the limitation ground alone, rendering it unnecessary to determine the res judicata ground

Reasoning

Since the intended suit was incurably time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, the preliminary objection succeeded on that ground alone. The court declined to delve into the res judicata issue arising from the prior Kerugoya judicial review judgment and the Nyeri appeal, as the limitation ground was determinative.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 prescribing 3 years' limitation for employment-based suits is in mandatory terms and the court has no discretion to extend the period

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by way of the notice of motion dated 09.09.2016 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear own cost of the proceedings

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 90

Cases cited (1)

  • The Hon. Attorney General and Another –Versus- Andrew Maina Githinji and Another
    [2016]eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (section 90 on limitation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Kiragu Njogu v Public Service Commission & another [2016] KEELRC 541 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Judicial Review Application No. 31 of 2013 (related); Notice of Motion dated 09.09.2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/541/eng@2016-10-14

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