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 excerpt (amended plaint filed 23.06.2014; originated as plaint filed 26.05.2004)· [2019] KEELRC 1901 (KLR)

Ronald Muge Cherogony v Cabinet Secretary for Defence & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 1901 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 March 2019
BOByram Ongaya
1,181 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a retired army Colonel conscripted in 1977 and commissioned in 1978, sued the respondents challenging his summary dismissal from military service on 14.03.2001. His earlier prosecution had been quashed by the High Court in Misc. Cause No. 672 of 1999, which ordered his reinstatement; he was reinstated and posted to Lanet Barracks, but on 22.02.2001 he faced the same charges before an Appropriate Superior Authority and on 14.03.2001 his commission was terminated pursuant to a Defence Council directive following a summary disciplinary trial on charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and service discipline contrary to section 68 of the Armed Forces Act. The claimant sought a declaration that his removal was null and void ab initio, general damages, loss of salary and emoluments from 14.03.2001, costs and interest. The respondents denied unlawfulness and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was incompetent for non-compliance with the Government Proceedings Act and time barred under the Public Authorities Limitation Act. The court found the cause of action accrued on 14.03.2001 and the suit filed on 26.05.2004 exceeded the three-year limitation period, with no extension of time obtained and no opposing submissions from the claimant. The preliminary objection was upheld, the suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and each party ordered to bear own costs, the court noting the respondents' own delay in prosecuting the objection.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit was time barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act, Cap 39

Holding

The suit was time barred; the claimant filed suit more than three years after termination of his commission and obtained no extension of time, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit on its merits.

Reasoning

The cause of action accrued on 14.03.2001 when the claimant's commission was terminated, and the suit was filed on 26.05.2004, after the statutory three-year period lapsed on 14.03.2004. The claimant made no submissions opposing the limitation defence and had not applied for and obtained extension of time. Once limitation bars the action, the court's jurisdiction over the merits is extinguished. The respondents' preliminary objection was therefore upheld and the suit dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Proceedings founded on contract against the government must be brought within three years from the date the cause of action accrued, and a suit filed out of that period robs the court of jurisdiction to entertain it on the merits.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection on limitation is upheld
  2. 2.Judgment entered for the respondents for dismissal of the suit
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Authorities Limitation Actsection 3(2)
  • Armed Forces Act Cap 199 (now repealed)section 68
  • Government Proceedings Actnull (referenced in preliminary objection notice)

Cases cited (1)

  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 672 of 1999 (R -Versus- Chief of General Staff and 2 Others Exparte Col. Ronald Muge Cherogony)
Jurisdiction invoked
Statutory jurisdiction of the court over employment and labour relations disputes; suit grounded in contract of service under the Armed Forces Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ronald Muge Cherogony v Cabinet Secretary for Defence & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 1901 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in excerpt (amended plaint filed 23.06.2014; originated as plaint filed 26.05.2004). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1901/eng@2019-03-29

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