Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Application (Originating Summons) dated 23rd October 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1698 (KLR)

Eliazar Bulimo v Millie Fruit Processors Limited [2016] KEELRC 1698 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 February 2016
LNLinnet Ndolo
598 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 employment court confirmed it cannot extend the six-year deadline for contract-based claims, so the applicant's late case failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, formerly an employee, sought leave by Originating Summons dated 23rd October 2015 to file his suit out of time. His employment was terminated on 3rd March 2008; he filed CMCC No. 2446 of 2010 at the Chief Magistrate's Court, which was struck out for want of jurisdiction. A review application was dismissed, an appeal to the High Court failed, and a transfer application was withdrawn. The court identified a single issue: whether the Applicant had established a case for enlargement of time. Applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the six-year limitation period for contract claims expired on 2nd March 2014. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Divecon Limited v Shirinkhanu Sadrudin Samani, the court held that Part III of the Act does not confer jurisdiction to extend time for contract-based actions, and the claim was founded on contract. The court also rejected the Applicant's submission that jurisdictional confusion among courts explained the delay, noting that the Industrial Court was always available for employment matters. The application was dismissed with no order for costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to file suit out of time can be granted for a claim founded on contract

Holding

No; Part III of the Limitation of Actions Act does not apply to contract claims, so the court has no jurisdiction to enlarge time

Reasoning

The cause of action accrued on termination of employment on 3rd March 2008, and under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act contract claims must be brought within six years, i.e. by 2nd March 2014. The applicant's earlier suit, filed within time in the Chief Magistrate's Court, was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Following Divecon Limited v Samani, Part III does not confer power to extend time for contract actions, so no forum-confusion argument assists.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Part III of the Limitation of Actions Act does not confer jurisdiction on courts to entertain applications for extension of time with respect to actions arising from contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application for leave to file suit out of time is dismissed with no order for costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)(a)
  • Limitation of Actions ActPart III
  • Labour Institutions Actnull

Cases cited (1)

  • Divecon Limited v Shirinkhanu Sadrudin Samani
    Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; application under the Limitation of Actions Act (Part III considered)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eliazar Bulimo v Millie Fruit Processors Limited [2016] KEELRC 1698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Miscellaneous Application (Originating Summons) dated 23rd October 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1698/eng@2016-02-19

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