Variety Flooring Works Limited v Matheka (Appeal 22 of 2016) [2021] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicability of Section 90 of the Employment Act limitation period
The suit filed on 30th April 2015, arising from injuries of 2nd February 2012, was statute-barred as limitation set in on 2nd February 2015
The court held that limitation is prescribed by statute and that Section 90 of the Employment Act provides a clear 3-year timeline for claims arising out of contracts of service. The law had been in force since 2007, evidencing legislative intent to cap limitation at 3 years. The plaintiff's ongoing treatment or settlement negotiations did not stop time from running, so the plaint was a stale suit.
Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation or ADR suspends limitation
The court rejected the argument implicitly by holding time ran continuously notwithstanding the respondent's conciliation/treatment claims
The Respondent argued that time spent in conciliation or alternative dispute resolution suspended accrual of the cause of action, relying on several authorities and invoking legitimate expectation. The court did not accept this, finding that limitation set in on 2nd February 2015 regardless of treatment or settlement discussions, and that the suit filed in April 2015 was misplaced and should suffer the fate of a stale suit.
Failure of the trial Magistrate to give reasons
The magistrate's ruling was set aside and the striking-out application allowed
The Appellant complained that the magistrate's ruling merely observed the application had no merit without addressing its arguments and authorities. On re-evaluation of the limitation issue, the court found the suit statute-barred and therefore set aside the ruling of 19th August 2016 and allowed the Notice of Motion striking out the plaint and the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Limitation is prescribed by statute; Section 90 of the Employment Act caps employment claims at 3 years from when the cause of action accrues
- Time continues to run during conciliation or treatment; the limitation period under Section 90 is not suspended
Court orders
#- 1.The Learned Magistrate's order of 19th August 2016 set aside
- 2.Substituted with an order allowing the Notice of Motion application dated 5th April 2016
- 3.Striking out the Plaint and consequently the suit in Nairobi CMCC No. 2476 of 2015
- 4.No order as to costs
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court (Milimani)
- CMCC No. 2476 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the magistrates' court in a claim arising from a contract of service under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Variety Flooring Works Limited v Matheka (Appeal 22 of 2016) [2021] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal No 22 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2418/eng@2021-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.