JOHN MWANIKI V G4S SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 221 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya

26 October 2012

OMOnesmus Makau

281 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Industrial Court struck out an unfair termination claim filed nearly four years late, confirming the three-year filing deadline under Section 90 of the Employment Act is strict.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The respondent G4S Security Services Limited filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection against the claimant John Mwaniki's suit seeking remedies for unlawful termination. The objection raised three grounds: that the claim was time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act; that the claimant lacked capacity to sue; and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a time barred suit. The preliminary objection was argued ex-parte on 1 October 2012, the court having satisfied itself that the claimant was aware of the hearing date, which had been fixed by consent. The respondent submitted that the suit was filed on 4 July 2012 seeking remedies for unlawful termination which occurred on 18 July 2008, and that Section 90 of the Employment Act restricts the filing of such claims to three years, meaning the claim should have been filed by 17 July 2011. Makau J perused the claim, the supporting documents and the submissions and found no leave order enlarging the time for filing the suit. The court allowed the preliminary objection, struck out the claim, and made no order as to costs. The judgment turned entirely on limitation: because the claim was time barred and no extension of time had been obtained, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, and the other grounds of the objection did not need separate determination.

Key legal issues

Limitation of employment claims

Holding

The claim filed on 4-7-2012 in respect of a termination occurring on 18-7-2008 was time barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, which restricts such claims to three years

Reasoning

The respondent submitted, and the court accepted on a perusal of the claim, that the termination occurred on 18-7-2008 and the suit was filed on 4-7-2012, well beyond the three-year window which would have expired on 17-7-2011. The court found no leave enlarging time. A time barred suit is one the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain, so the preliminary objection was upheld and the claim struck out.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Claims for unlawful termination under the Employment Act must be filed within three years of the cause of action under Section 90 of the Employment Act

Court orders

1.The Preliminary Objection is allowed
2.The claim is struck out
3.No order as to costs

Authorities

Legislation

Employment ActSection 90

Jurisdiction invoked: Employment Act, Section 90 (limitation of employment claims)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "JOHN MWANIKI V G4S SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Cause 1139 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2012/10/eng@2012-10-26

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