Peter Matano Mnene v Zachariah Kahuthu & 3 others (sued in their Capacities as Trustees of Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church) [2019] KEELRC 1795 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to strike out a worker's claim against a church employer, saying the limitation timeline couldn't be decided until the actual dismissal date was settled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Legal capacity of a society to be sued in its own name
The court did not determine this issue because the application failed on the limitation point and prematurity; the objection had also been effectively superseded by prior amendments
The Respondent argued that as a religious organisation registered under the Societies Act Cap 108 it lacks legal personality, citing Bridge Hotel Ltd v Wilfred Mutiso Lai Jesus Celebration Center. The court did not resolve this ground, instead finding the application premature and noting the earlier application on capacity grounds had been dealt with through amendment. The suit was ordered to proceed to conclusion.
Limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act where a party was added by amendment
Limitation could not be determined because when the cause of action arose was in contention, the Respondent denying that the Claimant was ever dismissed
The Respondent argued the claim filed in 2017 against the newly introduced party was outside the three-year limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act. The court, applying Sanyu International Ltd v Oriental Commercial Bank Ltd, noted the Respondent was introduced by amendment, not a fresh suit, and since the Respondent's own pleadings denied any dismissal, the accrual date was contested and it was premature to decide limitation interlocutorily.
Abuse of process / res judicata regarding repeated applications
The Claimant argued the application repeated grounds already dealt with in the 30th October 2017 application and amendment, offending Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
The Claimant contended that all grounds in the instant application were dealt with in the amendment of the Memorandum of Claim following the earlier application, relying on Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v CBK. The court's reasoning on this ground is not separately articulated, but the application as a whole failed and the claim was directed to proceed.
Legal principles established
#- Where a new party is introduced through an amendment to a claim, it cannot be said that a fresh suit was filed, but limitation against the newly added party runs from the introduction
- Where the date the cause of action arose is contested on the pleadings, limitation cannot be determined on an interlocutory application
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Respondent fails and the claim is to proceed to conclusion
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act No. 11 of 2007 and Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21), Sections 1A, 3A and 7
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Matano Mnene v Zachariah Kahuthu & 3 others (sued in their Capacities as Trustees of Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church) [2019] KEELRC 1795 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause (as stated in judgment) – Notice of Motion dated 6th November, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1795/eng@2019-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.