Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC 164 of 2018· [2019] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)

Robert Mwisani Lumadede v Attorney General [2019] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 February 2019
1,084 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it cannot extend the three-year deadline for filing employment contract claims, dismissing a review bid as an attempt to revive a time-barred claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Robert Mwisani Lumadede, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru by Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2018 seeking review of the ruling delivered on 22nd November 2018, which had dismissed his application for extension of time to file an employment and labour relations claim (ELRC 164 of 2018). He argued that the court failed to appreciate that related matters - Nakuru CMS 140 of 2012 and High Court 80 of 2014 - had been filed earlier, sought production of the CMS file, and alleged negligence by government organs and State Counsel who handled his matter from 2009 to 2011. The court framed the application under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, which permits review on discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason. Applying the settled jurisprudence in Divecon v Samani as reaffirmed in Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya, the court held that section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 is mandatory: employment claims founded on contract must be filed within three years, and the limitation period can only be extended in tort claims under sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court found that whatever was raised in the earlier files could not revive a claim over six years old, describing the attempt as incapable of being cured by any innovation, device or craft. The application for review was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 7th February 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether grounds for review under Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 were established

Holding

No ground for review was established; the application was an attempt to circumvent the mandatory limitation period

Reasoning

The court held that review requires discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the record, need for clarification, or other sufficient reason. The applicant's grounds - that prior files existed in the Chief Magistrate's Court and High Court - did not cure the fatal defect that the employment claim was time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, which is in mandatory terms and admits no extension for contract claims.

p. 2
02

Whether the court has power to extend time for filing employment claims beyond the statutory limitation period

Holding

The court is denied the power, discretion and leeway to extend time; claims must be lodged within the prescribed time

Reasoning

Relying on Divecon v Samani and Beatrice Kahai Adagala v Postal Corporation of Kenya, the court reaffirmed that the limitation period in contract claims is never extended, and can only be extended in tort claims under sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. An old employment claim cannot be revived by any innovation, device or craft.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim based on a contract of employment must be filed within 3 years and the limitation period is mandatory; it cannot be extended in matters based on contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 11th December, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 33(1)
  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 27 and 28

Cases cited (3)

  • Divecon versus Samani
    [1995-1998] 1 EA 48
  • Beatrice Kahai Adagala versus Postal Corporation of Kenya
    [2015] eKLR
  • Josephat Ndirangu - vs - Henkel Chemicals (EA) Limited
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert Mwisani Lumadede v Attorney General [2019] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELRC 164 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1982/eng@2019-02-07

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