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 (number not stated in judgment)· [2018] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)

John Muia Ngolanie v Electric Link International Ltd [2018] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 March 2018
RSRadido Stephen
779 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out a 2017 dismissal claim because employment lawsuits must be filed within three years — waiting too long kills the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, John Muia Ngolanie, sued Electric Link International Ltd on 10 May 2017 claiming unfair and unlawful dismissal, non-payment of terminal dues and other benefits arrears. He pleaded that he served the Respondent from 1989 to 2010, was placed on compulsory leave in 2010 pending a criminal case, and was informed of his dismissal after his acquittal in 2014. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection contending that the entire suit was statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which limits employment-based actions to three years and continuing injury claims to twelve months after cessation; that claims of wrongful prosecution were misconceived since the DPP is an independent constitutional office not party to the suit, and in any event barred under the Public Authorities Limitation Act; and that no known claims called 'wrongful termination' or 'wrongful prosecution' exist in law. The Claimant, though served with a hearing notice, was absent and unrepresented when the objection was heard on 14 February 2018, and the Court permitted the Respondent to urge the objection. The Court held that the cause of action arose in 2010, so proceedings should have been filed by the end of 2013, or within twelve months for any continuing injury. The pendency of criminal proceedings did not operate as an estoppel, applying Attorney General & Ar. v Andrew Maina Githinji & Ar (2016) eKLR. The preliminary objection was upheld and the Statement of Claim was struck out with costs to the Respondent. Judgment delivered in Nairobi on 2 March 2018 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Limitation of employment claims under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Holding

The suit, filed on 10 May 2017 over a 2010 separation, was statute barred and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it

Reasoning

The Claimant himself pleaded that he served until 2010 and was informed of his dismissal after acquittal in 2014. Section 90 requires proceedings to be instituted within three years of the accrual of the cause of action, or within twelve months for continuing injuries. A suit filed in 2017 over a 2010 separation fell outside both periods, and the objection on jurisdiction was therefore upheld.

p. 2
02

Whether ongoing criminal proceedings estop the running of limitation

Holding

No; criminal proceedings do not operate as a legal estoppel saving employment claims from limitation

Reasoning

The Claimant was sent on compulsory leave in 2010 pending a criminal case and claimed dismissal after acquittal in 2014. The court held, following Attorney General & Ar. v Andrew Maina Githinji & Ar (2016) eKLR, that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings is not an estoppel in law and cannot extend or suspend the limitation period under section 90.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, employment-based claims must be instituted within three years of the cause of action, and continuing injury claims within twelve months of cessation
  • The pendency of criminal proceedings does not operate as an estoppel to save employment claims from the limitation dragnet

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is upheld
  2. 2.The Statement of Claim is struck out
  3. 3.Costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 90
  • Employment Act, 2007section 10(6)
  • Public Authorities Limitation Act, Cap 39section 3(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 157 and 158
  • Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, No. 2 of 2013

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General & Ar. v Andrew Maina Githinji & Ar
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007; suit limited by section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Muia Ngolanie v Electric Link International Ltd [2018] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2418/eng@2018-03-02

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