Joseah Kiprono Langat v Konoin Tea Growers Sacco Society Limited [2016] KEELRC 990 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the limitation defence qualified as a proper preliminary objection
No - the objection depended on facts requiring evidentiary investigation, particularly the date and fact of termination of employment
The respondent asserted the claimant's services were terminated on 29th September 2009, but the claimant averred his employment was never terminated, having only been sent on compulsory leave on 10/12/2004. Determining when limitation began to run would require resolving this factual dispute, which is impermissible on a preliminary objection under the Mukhisa Biscuits formulation. The court therefore declined to uphold the objection.
Whether the claim was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act and section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
Not determined on the objection, since the plea rested on contested facts about termination
The respondent argued that limitation ran from the alleged dismissal of 29th September 2009, relying on Ben Kiplagat Runduny v Standard Chartered Bank and Divecon v Samani. The claimant denied any termination, and the respondent's own pleading put termination to strict proof at the hearing. As the date of accrual of the cause of action could not be established without evidence, the limitation point failed as a preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection that requires ascertainment of facts or evidentiary investigation does not qualify as a pure point of law
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 19th May, 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the preliminary objection
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, 2007 claim); no specific constitutional provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseah Kiprono Langat v Konoin Tea Growers Sacco Society Limited [2016] KEELRC 990 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/990/eng@2016-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.