Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 14th October 2022· [2024] KEELRC 2292 (KLR)

Marwa v National Police Service Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E195 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2292 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2024
2,574 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that time limits in ordinary employment laws do not block constitutional rights claims, allowing a 19-year-old police dismissal case to proceed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner was dismissed from the National Police Service on 23rd August 2002 (a letter he says he received on 7th April 2003) without disciplinary or orderly-room proceedings, and was simultaneously subjected to criminal proceedings. He petitioned the ELRC seeking declarations that the dismissal and prior criminal proceedings violated Articles 41, 47, 50, 236 and 159 of the Constitution, plus reinstatement, salary and allowances, terminal dues, damages, costs and interest. The 2nd to 4th Respondents and the 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection arguing the petition was time-barred, invoking Section 90 of the Employment Act and Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation of Actions Act, and contending the petition was an ordinary employment claim dressed as a constitutional petition to defeat limitation. The Petitioner countered that the objection raised factual matters unfit for a preliminary objection, that the outcome of his administrative appeal was only communicated on 21st July 2022, and that limitation does not apply to constitutional claims. The court framed two issues: whether the petition was properly presented as a constitutional petition, and whether it was time-barred. It held the controversy raised genuine constitutional issues best litigated under the Constitution, and that statutory limitation does not apply to claims founded on violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights, subject to the court's power to strike out petitions filed after inordinate, inexplicable delay. On these facts striking out was unwarranted. The preliminary objection was dismissed and the petition ordered to proceed to hearing on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition was an ordinary employment claim disguised as a constitutional petition

Holding

The court found the petition properly initiated as a constitutional petition raising constitutional issues.

Reasoning

The court considered the constitutional provisions invoked, the nature of the alleged violations and the remedies sought, and noted that the petition remained unchallenged as the Respondents had not filed responses. The grievance that the outcome of the administrative appeal was communicated 18 years later raised constitutional questions adequately litigable only under the Constitution. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not defeat the petition.

p. 4
02

Whether statutory limitation applies to the constitutional petition

Holding

Limitation statutes do not bar petitions founded on violation of the Constitution or of rights, though inordinate delay may justify striking out; on the facts, striking out was not warranted.

Reasoning

Relying on prevailing precedent including Chief Land Registrar v Nathan Tirop Koech, the court held that unless expressly stated in the Constitution, limitation periods in the Limitation of Actions Act do not apply to enforcement of Bill of Rights claims. However, courts retain discretion to strike out petitions initiated after inexplicable and inordinate delay where justice so demands. Here the circumstances did not call for striking out.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Statutory limitation periods do not apply to causes of action arising out of violation of the Constitution or constitutional rights.
  • A court may nonetheless strike out a constitutional petition filed after inordinate and inexplicable delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 13th March 2023 is dismissed.
  2. 2.The petition shall be heard on its merits.
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 41, 47, 50, 236 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya (petition for enforcement of constitutional rights)

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Marwa v National Police Service Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E195 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 14th October 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2292/eng@2024-09-26

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