Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the excerpt· [2022] KEELRC 90 (KLR)

Jillo v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Cause 827 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 90 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 April 2022
SRStella Rutto
1,303 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

#

A Kenyan court struck out a wrongful dismissal claim against government employers because it was filed over three years after the dismissal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued alleging wrongful dismissal from employment and sought various reliefs including reinstatement. The 1st Respondent filed Grounds of Objection dated 21st August 2019 urging that the suit be dismissed as time barred, as misconceived and an abuse of process (the 1st Respondent lacking mandate to review disciplinary cases concluded before its establishment), and on the ground that reinstatement was untenable. The parties agreed on 1st December 2021 to dispose of the preliminary matter by written submissions. The Respondents relied on section 90 of the Employment Act and section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, arguing the three-year limitation period had lapsed. The Claimant countered that the Employment Act limitation clause did not apply and that the matter should proceed on its merits. The court framed a sole issue: whether the suit was time barred. It held that although the Employment Act position was disputed, the Public Authorities Limitations Act plainly applied because the 1st and 2nd Respondents were government departments and the 3rd Respondent the Attorney General, barring contract claims against the Government after three years. The cause of action accrued on dismissal on 27th January 2010, and time ran until 26th January 2013. The suit, filed on 12th May 2016, was about three years past the limitation period. Following Thuranira Karauri vs Agnes Ncheche, the court found limitation goes to jurisdiction and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit dated 9th May 2016 was struck out, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit filed about six years and four months after dismissal is time barred

Holding

Yes; the claim was time barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, time running from the date of dismissal on 27th January 2010 to 26th January 2013

Reasoning

The Respondents are government departments and the Attorney General, so the Public Authorities Limitations Act applies and bars contract claims after three years. The cause of action arose on dismissal, and the suit filed on 12th May 2016 was about three years past the limitation period. Limitation goes to jurisdiction, so the court could not entertain the suit.

p. 3
02

Whether the Employment Act limitation period applies to the proceedings

Holding

Even if the Employment Act did not apply, the Public Authorities Limitations Act applied because the Respondents are government entities

Reasoning

The Claimant argued section 90 of the Employment Act did not apply. The court accepted arguendo but held the Public Authorities Limitations Act applies to proceedings against the Government, which includes government departments and the Attorney General, and bars contract claims after three years.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Suits founded on contract, including employment contracts, against the Government must be brought within three years of the cause of action accruing
  • Limitation goes to jurisdiction
  • A cause of action in wrongful dismissal accrues on the date of dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Strike out the suit dated 9th May, 2016 for being time barred
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 90
  • Public Authorities Limitations Actsection 3(2)
  • Public Authorities Limitations Actsection 2
  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22)section 4(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (10)

  • Benjamin Wichita Ndiithi vs Public Service Commission and another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Beatrice Kahai Adagala vs Postal Corporation of Kenya
    (2015) eKLR
  • Josephat Ndirangu vs Henkel Chemicals (EA) Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Joyce Wanjiku Muchiko & another vs Telkom (K) Limited
  • Euticus Guantai Nkunja vs National Police Service Commission & 2 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Ternic Enterprises Limited vs Waterfront Outlets Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Wilmot Mwadilo, Edwin Mwakaya, Amos Nyatta & Patrick Mbinga vs Eliud Timothy Mwamunga & Sagalla Ranchers Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • Attorney General & another vs Andrew Maina Githinji & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Letang vs Cooper
    [1964] 2 All ER 929 at 934
  • Thuranira Karauri vs Agnes Ncheche
    [1997] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction by dint of limitation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jillo v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Cause 827 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 90 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/90/eng@2022-04-28

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