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 the judgment as provided· [2018] KEELRC 754 (KLR)

Moses K. Anampiu v Katheri Farmers Co-op Society [2018] KEELRC 754 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 October 2018
NMNzioki wa Makau
2,400 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A former co-operative manager lost his employment claim in Kenya's Employment Court because he couldn't prove his dismissal—and the court found his own conduct tainted the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, who described himself as the former secretary manager of the Respondent dairy co-operative society, sued for salary arrears from January to April 2008, house allowance, yearly increment, payment for 103 accrued leave days, one month's salary in lieu of notice, terminal dues and costs, asserting termination effective 11th April 2008. The Respondent denied he was ever its employee, denied any binding CBA, and alleged he caused the collapse of its operations through pilfering and mismanagement. The Claimant testified and called the auditor; the Respondent called three witnesses including its current and former chairmen. The court first rejected the Respondent's limitation objection: although the suit was filed in 2012, four years after the alleged dismissal, the cause of action predated the June 2008 commencement of the Employment Act 2007, so the six-year period under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act applied. On the merits, however, the court found the dismissal letter doubtful and possibly forged, noting the handwritten/typed hybrid format and lack of authentication. The court observed that the Respondent's records were destroyed or taken during the Claimant's tenure as custodian, that the audit report lacked letterhead and stamps and its fee had no receipt, and that the Claimant came across as the author of the society's misfortune. Holding that a claimant cannot benefit from his own unethical actions and that the Claimant failed to prove dismissal or entitlement, the court dismissed the suit with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation of the employment claim

Holding

The Respondent's limitation objection under Section 90 of the Employment Act fails because the cause of action accrued before that Act came into force; the 6-year period under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act applies instead.

Reasoning

Section 90 of the Employment Act 2007 governs limitation only for causes accruing after the Act came into effect in June 2008. The Claimant's cause of action arose in April 2008, before commencement, and the repealed Employment Act contained no limitation provision, so the Limitation of Actions Act's 6-year period applied. The suit filed in 2012 was therefore within time, and the Respondent 'missed the bus' on this objection.

p. 3
02

Proof of dismissal and entitlement to terminal dues

Holding

The Claimant failed to prove dismissal or entitlement; the letter of dismissal appeared suspect and possibly forged, and his conduct was found to have caused the Respondent's collapse.

Reasoning

The court found the dismissal letter doubtful because part was handwritten and part typed without authentication. Records were destroyed or taken during the Claimant's tenure as custodian, the auditor's payment had no receipt or counterfoil, and the audit report lacked letterhead or stamps. The court concluded the Claimant was the author of the Respondent's misfortune and could not benefit from his own unethical actions.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the cause of action accrued before the Employment Act 2007 came into effect (June 2008), the applicable limitation period is 6 years under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, not Section 90 of the Employment Act.
  • A claimant cannot benefit from his own unethical actions; a claim tainted by the claimant's misconduct may be unfit for grant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1)
  • Employment Act (repealed)limitation provision absent

Cases cited (4)

  • Paramount Bank Limited v Qureishi & Another
    [2005] 1 KLR 730
  • The Director General East Africa Posts and Telecommunications Corporation v Jiffunarisi Simba
    Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1976 (unreported)
  • Patrick Koome Kwaria v Board of Management Nkubu Day Secondary School
    Meru Cause No. 13 of 2017 (unreported)
  • Fredrick Wandera v Letshego Kenya Limited
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (suit transferred from the lower court which ruled it had no jurisdiction; claim originally arising under the repealed Employment Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moses K. Anampiu v Katheri Farmers Co-op Society [2018] KEELRC 754 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/754/eng@2018-10-04

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