Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Management, Magnolia Hotel [2020] KEELRC 1554 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya

13 February 2020

MMM. Mbaru

975 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

The Employment Court dismissed a worker's claims against her former employer because she filed them more than three years after her employment ended, and wrongly sued the wrong entity.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The claimant trade union, representing grievant Susan Peninah Anyango, sued the Management of Magnolia Hotel seeking compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, wages for six days in February 2017, arrears of underpayment, service gratuity for seven years, public holiday pay, annual leave, a certificate of service and costs. The grievant testified she was employed as a cleaner from January 2010, was moved to Serene Hostel in October 2013 following a notice terminating employment with the respondent, and worked there until her employment ended in February 2017 without notice, hearing or terminal dues. The respondent's defence was that its business closed in 2013 with notice to all employees, the grievant was settled, and she was placed with Serene Hostel until that entity closed in 2017; the grievant thereafter occupied housing without paying rent. The respondent filed a witness statement and the termination notice dated 15th October, 2013 but called no witness, and the claimant did not contest the defence. The court held that employment with the respondent ended upon the uncontested October 2013 notice, and under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 claims arising from it had to be filed within three years, which lapsed in 2016; the claim was filed on 4th March, 2019 and was therefore time barred. Claims relating to the Serene Hostel period could not stand because that entity was not a party to the suit. The suit was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

Limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act

Holding

The claims relating to employment with the respondent, which ended upon the notice of 15th October, 2013, were time barred as the suit was filed on 4th March, 2019, well beyond three years

Reasoning

The court found the grievant's employment with the respondent ended on the uncontested notice dated 15th October, 2013. Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 mandates that such claims be brought within three years. The limitation period lapsed in 2016, while the claim was filed on 4th March, 2019. The claimant did not contest the defence or the notice, so the claims were statute barred.

p. 2

Claims against a non-party (Serene Hostel)

Holding

Claims relating to employment under Serene Hostel cannot stand against the respondent because Serene Hostel was not joined as a party

Reasoning

The grievant was placed with Serene Hostel after the respondent terminated employment in October 2013, and her employment there ended in February 2017. Serene Hostel is not a party to the suit, and there was no evidence it was owned by the respondent. Any claims relating to that period of employment should have been pursued against Serene Hostel had it been enjoined.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Claims arising from termination of employment must be filed within three years under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, failing which they are time barred

Court orders

1.The suit is dismissed
2.Costs to the respondent

Authorities

Legislation

Employment Act, 2007section 90

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Management, Magnolia Hotel [2020] KEELRC 1554 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 16 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1554/eng@2020-02-13

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