Sammy Thuo Kangea v County Government of Nakuru & another [2019] KEELRC 1703 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a former council treasurer's terminal dues claim because he filed suit a decade too late, showing employment claims cannot wait.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the Limitation of Actions Act
Yes. The claimant's employment effectively ended when he was removed from the payroll and paid terminal dues on 1st September, 2004; filing suit on 10th June, 2014 was far beyond the limitation period, and time could not be extended by the Ministry's letters or by pending disciplinary or criminal processes
The court found that the claimant was interdicted in April 2002, removed from the payroll by letter dated 9th July 2003, and paid Ksh.841,816.05 as terminal dues on 1st September 2004. The cause of action crystallised then. The letters from the Ministry of Devolution and Planning did not extend time; neither pending disciplinary proceedings nor criminal charges stop time from running. The claim filed on 10th June 2014 was far out of time, and limitation being an issue of law, the court could not ignore it even though the respondents did not attend the hearing.
When the employment terminated
The employment effectively terminated on 1st September, 2004 when the 1st respondent deleted and removed the claimant from the payroll and paid him terminal dues
Despite the claimant's assertion that his retirement fell due on 14th September 2004 and that the disciplinary matter was only closed on 11th June 2013, the court found that the 1st respondent had effectively removed him from the payroll effective 1st September 2004, and his last payments were received on that date. There was no reinstatement, payment of salaries or engagement with him as an employee thereafter.
Whether an unattended limitation defence can be ignored
No; limitation is an issue of law the court cannot ignore even where the respondent fails to attend the hearing
The respondent raised limitation in its defence but did not attend the hearing. The court held that the time limitation point is an issue of law which the court cannot ignore merely because the respondent was absent, since a suit filed out of time deprives the court of jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- In employment and labour relations claims, time does not stop running for whatever reason; once time lapses, extension is not permissible under any law
- Time does not stop running on the commencement of reconciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provided for under the Constitution or any other law
- Pending investigations or criminal proceedings do not bar the running of time for employment and labour relations claims and are regulated under a different legal framework
Court orders
#- 1.Suit herein is struck out
- 2.No orders on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act, 2007 and the repealed Employment Act Cap 226 (section 90 read with section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act); the court found jurisdiction lacking because the claim was time barred
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sammy Thuo Kangea v County Government of Nakuru & another [2019] KEELRC 1703 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 190 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1703/eng@2019-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.