Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause (transferred from Chief Magistrates' Court, commenced 10 May 2012)· [2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)

Newton Muli Mbatha v CMC Motors Group Limited [2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 March 2016
RSRadido Stephen
909 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a wrongful dismissal claim filed about 13 years too late, confirming that the three-year clock starts running the day you are dismissed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Newton Muli Mbatha (Claimant) sued CMC Motors Group Ltd (Respondent) alleging unlawful termination of employment, relying on his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 29 of 1998. The suit was originally filed before the Chief Magistrates Court and, after interlocutory incidents including formal proof judgment later set aside with leave to defend, was transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru, where it was heard on 12 November 2015. The court framed five issues, including limitation, desertion, unlawfulness of termination, the effect of the criminal acquittal, and remedies. It determined that the limitation question was dispositive. The dismissal letter was dated 25 November 1997 and the Claimant admitted receiving it and a final dues letter in December 1997, yet filed the claim about a decade later. The court held that the actionable wrong in unfair termination or wrongful dismissal occurs at the point of dismissal, and that pendency of criminal proceedings neither stops time running nor sustains a contractual cause of action beyond the prescribed period. Endorsing the Rosebellah Jepkoech Ronoh decision and the Abdulla Ramadhan dicta, it found the cause statute barred under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and struck it out. Observing obiter, the court held that a criminal acquittal does not itself invalidate a termination, since the standard of proof in employment disputes is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt. No order as to costs was made, both parties having breached filing timelines. Judgment was delivered in Nakuru on 11 March 2016 by Radido Stephen J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the cause of action was statute barred

Holding

Yes; the claim filed about 10 years after dismissal exceeded the limitation period under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and was struck out.

Reasoning

The legal injury in unfair termination or wrongful dismissal is sustained at the point of dismissal. The Claimant was dismissed on 25 November 1997 and filed suit on 10 May 2010. Pendency of criminal proceedings neither stops time running nor sustains a cause of action, and equity cannot be invoked where no statutory provision extends the limitation period.

p. 2
02

Effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings on termination of employment

Holding

An acquittal does not of itself make a termination unlawful or unfair; an employer may terminate where it has reasonable and sufficient grounds to suspect the employee of an offence.

Reasoning

Criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt, while unfair termination disputes are decided on a lower standard. An employer with reasonable and sufficient suspicion may end the employment relationship. The court therefore declined to examine the remaining issues except to make these observations, having struck out the cause as time barred.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In unfair termination or wrongful dismissal disputes, the cause of action accrues at the date of dismissal and limitation runs from that date; pendency of criminal proceedings does not stop time running.
  • An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not render a termination of employment unfair, as the standard of proof in employment disputes is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The cause of action is struck out as statute barred under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Actsection 4(1)
  • Employment Actapplicable provisions on unfair termination

Cases cited (2)

  • Rosebellah Jepkoech Ronoh v Telkom Kenya Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Abdulla Ramadhan & Ar v Suleiman Haji & Ar
Jurisdiction invoked
Transferred Cause under employment and labour relations jurisdiction (originally commenced before the Chief Magistrates Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Newton Muli Mbatha v CMC Motors Group Limited [2016] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause (transferred from Chief Magistrates' Court, commenced 10 May 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1567/eng@2016-03-11

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