Paul K. Langat v Kenya Defence Forces 9th Battalion & another [2021] KEELRC 143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A former KDF officer's suit was struck out because it was filed late and relied on the Employment Act, which does not cover Defence Forces.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection raises pure points of law
The objection raises pure points of law requiring no evidence and capable of ending the suit.
Applying the Mukisa Biscuits test, the court found the grounds - limitation under the Public Authorities Limitation Act and non-applicability of the Employment Act to KDF - required no ascertainment of facts and no exercise of judicial discretion, hence properly raised as a preliminary objection.
Whether the suit is time barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act
The suit, founded on contract of service and filed about 10 months after the three-year limitation period expired, is time barred and the court lacks jurisdiction.
The cause of action arose on 23/1/2013 or 5/2/2013 and the suit was filed on 22/11/2016, beyond the three-year period. The claimant's argument that time stopped running upon his application for review under section 159(3) of the KDF Act did not persuade the court, which applied the statutory bar and relied on the Anaclet Kalia Musau and Razo Limited authorities.
Whether the suit offends section 3(2)(a) of the Employment Act
The Employment Act does not apply to the Kenya Defence Forces, so the suit cannot be grounded on it.
Section 3(2)(a) of the Employment Act expressly excludes the KDF from the Act's application. The dispute being between a former KDF officer and KDF, the claimant could only invoke the court's jurisdiction under the KDF Act, the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Actions Act or other law, not the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- A suit founded on contract against the Government or a local authority cannot be brought after three years from the date the cause of action accrued
- Lapse of the limitation period extinguishes the court's jurisdiction over the cause of action
- The Employment Act does not apply to the Kenya Defence Forces
- A former KDF officer may invoke the court's jurisdiction under the KDF Act, Constitution, Fair Administrative Actions Act or other law, but not under the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 25/10/2019 is sustained
- 2.The suit is struck out
- 3.Each party shall bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under section 12 of the Labour Institutions Act (invoked in the Statement of Claim); ruling on preliminary objection under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kivevenze v Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence & 2 others (Cause 1921 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2470 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2470 (KLR)16 Oct 2023followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul K. Langat v Kenya Defence Forces 9th Battalion & another [2021] KEELRC 143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/143/eng@2021-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.