Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No 1147 of 2015· [2024] KEELRC 1116 (KLR)

Yunis v Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 2 others (Cause 1147 of 2015) [2024] KEELRC 1116 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 April 2024
1,962 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out an unfair dismissal claim filed over three years after termination, confirming internal appeals don't pause the legal filing deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th February 2024 seeking dismissal of the Claimant's suit as time barred under Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act and Section 90 of the Employment Act, and for want of jurisdiction. The Claimant replied that he was dismissed on 12th February 2012, appealed and sought review, and only filed suit after exhausting those mechanisms, submitting that time should not have run while his matter was pending before the Public Service Commission and that the Respondents were estopped from pleading limitation. Applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court held the objection raised pure points of law - jurisdiction and limitation - and was competent, since a plea of limitation implicates jurisdiction. The court held that a cause of action for unfair dismissal accrues on dismissal (George Hiram Ndirangu; Andrew Maina Githinji; G4S Security), that Sections 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act and 90 of the Employment Act are mandatory, and that time does not stop running because of internal appeal or review processes. The Claimant, dismissed on 13th February 2012 and filing on 26th August 2015, was about six months out of time, the claim having become statute barred on 12th February 2015. The objection was upheld, the suit struck out as statute barred, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the notice of preliminary objection meets the Mukisa Biscuits threshold

Holding

The objection raised pure points of law - jurisdiction and limitation - and was competent

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court found the objection rested on jurisdiction and limitation, both pure points of law requiring no ascertainment of facts. A plea of limitation implicates jurisdiction and should be determined at the threshold as it may dispose of the suit.

p. 3
02

Whether the Claimant's suit is statute barred

Holding

Yes; the suit was filed about six months after the three-year limitation period expired on 12th February 2015

Reasoning

Dismissal took effect on 13th February 2012 and the memorandum of claim was filed on 26th August 2015. Section 90 of the Employment Act and Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act are mandatory: no action lies beyond three years from accrual. Exhausting internal appeal and review mechanisms does not suspend time, and the Claimant failed to exercise reasonable diligence.

p. 4
03

Whether pending internal appeals or review processes postpone the running of limitation time

Holding

No; alternative dispute resolution mechanisms do not stop time from running

Reasoning

Relying on G4S Security Services, Rift Valley Railways and Times Newspaper Ltd v O'Regan, the court held that the submission that the Claimant could not file suit while the Public Service Commission processes were pending lacked legal anchorage. Estoppel cannot be founded on the employer's own disciplinary and appeal mechanisms to defeat a statutory limitation bar.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A cause of action for unfair termination or dismissal accrues on the date of dismissal, and a suit founded on contract against a public authority must be filed within three years
  • Time does not stop running on the commencement of reconciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Preliminary Objection is upheld and the Claimant's suit is struck out on the ground that it is statute barred
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Authorities Limitation ActSection 3(2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 90
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(1); Section 39(1)(b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd V West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • BP Exploration Ltd V Chevron Shipping Co.
    (2003) 197
  • George Hiram Ndirangu V Equity Bank Ltd
    (2015) eKLR
  • Attorney General & another V Andrew Maina Githinji & another
    (2016) eKLR
  • G4S Security Services (K) Ltd V Joseph Kamau & 486 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • G4S Security Services (K) Ltd V Joseph Kamau & 468 others
  • Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd V Hawkins Wagunza Musonye & another
    (2016) eKLR
  • Times Newspaper Ltd V O'Regan
    (1977) I.R.L.R 101
  • Gathoni V Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd
    Civil App. No. 122 of 1981
  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" V Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act (Cap 39) and Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Yunis v Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 2 others (Cause 1147 of 2015) [2024] KEELRC 1116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 1147 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1116/eng@2024-04-29

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