REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI CASE NO. 255 OF 2018 1. GRACE WAMBUI WAHOME 2. JULIUS MAHINDU MWANGI............................................CLAIMANTS VERSUS B.O.M DR. KAMUNDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL............RESPONDENT RULING 1. A preliminary objection was taken by the Respondent who had been sued for various reliefs by the 2 Claimants. The Respondent argues that the court therefore lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine the matter before it. The Claimants are opposed and parties opted to argue the preliminary objection through submissions. The Respondent relied on the case of Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696 and submitted that the objection was merited as the Claimants filed the suit outside the prescribed limit. It relied on the provisions of Section 90 of the Employment Act. The case of Attorney General & Another v Andrew Maina Githinji & Another [2016] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that suits filed outside the limitation period cannot be upheld was relied on. The Respondent submitted that this position was reiterated in the Court of Appeal in the case of G4S Security Services (K) Limited v Joseph Kamau & 488 Others [2018] eKLR. The Respondent submitted that time does not stop running during conciliation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The case of Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd v Hawkins Wagunza Musonye & Another [2016] eKLR was cited for the foregoing proposition and the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the claim that was time barred. 2. The Claimants admitted that the suit was filed out of time due to the dilatoriness of the Respondent in negotiations and conciliation. The Claimants submitted that the Respondent should not benefit from their own action which caused the matter to drag on by promising to pay but failing to do so. The Claimants thus submitted that they even tried alternative dispute resolution (ADR) meeting a State Counsel at the behest of the Principal of the Respondent in an attempt to finalize the matter through negotiation and settlement. 3. It is moot to reiterate the findings in Mukisa Biscuit (supra) or the provisions of Section 90. The law clearly stipulates that there is a time limit within which to file a claim for the relief the Claimants seek. They readily admit the suit was time barred and blame the Respondent for the delay. As held in the case of Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd v Hawkins Wagunza Musonye & Another (supra), time did not stop running even when the matter went to conciliation or underwent the alternative dispute resolution mechanism involving the State Counsel. As the claim is time barred, it is stale and must of necessity be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 23rd day of January 2019 Nzioki wa Makau JUDGE I certify that this is a true copy of the original DEPUTY REGISTRAR
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.