Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2016] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)

Cyrus Waithaka Wachira v Equity Bank Limited [2016] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 March 2016
LNLINNET NDOLO
468 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 employer's written acknowledgement that it owes an employee money restarts the three-year clock for filing an employment claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Ruling determines the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2015 seeking to strike out the Claimant's claim filed on 19th March 2014 as statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007. The Claimant, employed as an Accounts Assistant from 5th July 2007, was summarily dismissed on 22nd February 2010. The Respondent, through Florence Njuguna's supporting affidavit, argued that the claim filed more than three years after dismissal was out of time. The Claimant opposed the application, deponing that he was facing criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No 983 of 2010) at the time of dismissal and could not file suit before their conclusion, and further that the Respondent's letter dated 1st April 2014 tabulating his entitlements marked the commencement of time. The court framed a single issue: whether the claim was statute barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act. Applying that provision, the court noted the ordinary limitation period would have expired on 21st February 2013. However, the Respondent's letter of 1st April 2014 acknowledging final dues of Kshs.59,044.89 brought the claim within Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides for fresh accrual of the right of action upon acknowledgement of claim. Time therefore began to run afresh on 1st April 2014 and the claim filed on 19th March 2014 was within time. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim filed on 19th March 2014 was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

The claim was not time-barred because the Respondent's letter of 1st April 2014 acknowledging final dues of Kshs.59,044.89 triggered fresh accrual of the right of action under Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Reasoning

The Claimant was dismissed on 22nd February 2010, so under Section 90 of the Employment Act the ordinary limitation period would have expired on 21st February 2013. However, the court held that the Respondent's letter of 1st April 2014 acknowledging that it owed the Claimant final dues constituted an acknowledgement of claim under Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act, restarting time. The claim filed on 19th March 2014 was therefore within time and the strike-out application failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer's acknowledgement of an employee's claim triggers fresh accrual of the right of action under Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2015 seeking to strike out the Claimant's claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 23(3)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007; Section 23(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cyrus Waithaka Wachira v Equity Bank Limited [2016] KEELRC 1520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1520/eng@2016-03-18

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