Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutPetition filed 18th May 2018· [2018] KEELRC 591 (KLR)

Lydia Kaimuri Gikundi v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 591 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 November 2018
1,161 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a dismissal claim filed over 10 years late, ruling you cannot dodge the 3-year time limit by filing a constitutional petition.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Respondent's preliminary objection dated 5th June 2018 in a petition filed on 18th May 2018 by a former employee dismissed on 3rd January 2008, who had been charged in a criminal court and discharged under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner sought declarations that her dismissal was unlawful, unfair and unreasonable, plus salary, notice pay, pension, leave and house allowances up to retirement, damages for defamation and loss of career, costs and interest. The Respondent objected that the petition was incompetent, bad in law, an abuse of court, and time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, since over 10 years had elapsed since dismissal, ousting the court's jurisdiction. The Respondent relied on Ramogi, Kenya Pharmaceutical Association, G4S Security, Aviation Cargo, Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian 'S', the Interim Independent Electoral Commission decision, Bosire Ogeto, Masagu Ole Koitalel Naumo and Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi. The Petitioner countered that the objection offended Article 20 of the Constitution and Mukisa Biscuits, Murenga, Obuba, Otieno and Mbogo. The court held that the authorities favouring the petitioner were merely persuasive or distinguishable: unlike Obuba (torture and detention after the 1982 coup) and Murenga, the petitioner here pleaded no constitutional infringements and sought only Employment Act remedies. The petition was therefore a cleverly disguised memorandum of claim, time barred, leaving the court without jurisdiction. The court struck out the petition and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition met the threshold of a constitutional petition

Holding

It did not; it pleaded no specific constitutional violations and sought only statutory Employment Act remedies

Reasoning

The court compared the authorities relied on by the petitioner. It distinguished the Court of Appeal decision in Murenga, where the Constitution was held not to limit articulation of rights violations, because here the petitioner set out no constitutional infringements. The claims were for 12 months' compensation, salary, house allowance and similar Employment Act remedies, so the petition was a memorandum of claim in constitutional clothing.

p. 2
02

Whether the claim is time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act and whether that ousts jurisdiction

Holding

The claim, arising from a dismissal on 3rd January 2008, was time barred; limitation extinguished the court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court reasoned that limitation law bars stale claims and protects defendants from unreasonable delay. Authorities finding limitation inapplicable to constitutional claims were held merely persuasive or distinguishable. Since the petition was in substance an Employment Act claim filed over 10 years after dismissal, Section 90 barred it, and without jurisdiction the only course was striking out the petition.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction is everything and a court without jurisdiction can do nothing
  • A petition that seeks only Employment Act remedies without pleading constitutional infringements is a disguised memorandum of claim and is barred by limitation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition dated 18th May 2018 is struck out for want of jurisdiction, being time barred
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Criminal Procedure CodeSection 87
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 20

Cases cited (14)

  • David Ramogi & 4 Others v The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Petroleum & 7 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kenya Pharmaceutical Association & Another v Nairobi City County and the 46 other County Governments & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • G4S Security Services (K) Limited v Joseph Kamau & 468 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Aviation Cargo Support Limited v St. Mark Freight Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian 'S' v Caltex Oil (K) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • In Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission
    [2011] eKLR
  • Bosire Ogeto v Royal Media Services
    [2015] eKLR
  • Masagu Ole Koitalel Naumo v Principal Magistrate Kajiado Law Courts & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi v Mtana Lewa
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v West End Distributors Ltd.
    [1969] EA 696
  • Clement Ernest Opiyo Murenga v Principal Secretary, Treasury and Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Henry Nyakoe Obuba v National Police Service Commission & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Jane Atieno Otieno v National Police Service & 3 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • John Muruge Mbogo v Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces & Another
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Constitution; contested on limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lydia Kaimuri Gikundi v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 591 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition filed 18th May 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/591/eng@2018-11-05

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