Mbogo v Paws Africa Safaris Limited (Cause 402 of 2013) [2018] KEELRC 2613 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it cannot hear employment claims filed more than three years late, and dismissed this one with costs against the claimant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim filed more than three years after the cause of action arose, contrary to Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 2.Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 4.11.2015 has merit
Key legal issues
#Limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
The claim filed on 26/3/2013 in respect of a cause of action arising on 14.3.2010 (resignation) was time barred, depriving the Court of jurisdiction; the Preliminary Objection was upheld and the claim dismissed with costs.
Section 90 of the Employment Act ousts civil actions based on the Act or a contract of service unless commenced within three years of the act, neglect or default complained of. The cause of action arose on 14.3.2010 when the Claimant resigned, so the claim should have been filed by 13.3.2012. Filing on 26/3/2013 was outside the period. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in KAA vs Shadrack Abraham Kisongochi, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to extend time, and the claim was dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Claims under the Employment Act, 2007 must be filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose, and the court cannot extend time under Section 90.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
- 2.The claim is found time barred and dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 (limitation jurisdiction of the Court)
Relief refused
#Claimant's request that the Court proceed to hear the matter in the interest of justice
The claim was filed outside the three-year limitation period in Section 90 of the Employment Act and the Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time
Costs
Costs of the claim and of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That being the position and the law, I do find the Preliminary Objection has merit. I find this claim time barred and I dismiss it accordingly with costs to the Respondents.
In view of this provision, matters filed under the Employment Act 2007 should be filed within 3 years from the date the cause of action arose.
no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted un less it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and full party names of the claim are not stated in the judgment text provided.
Minor typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. 'ofiends' for 'offends' and 'field' for 'filed'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbogo v Paws Africa Safaris Limited (Cause 402 of 2013) [2018] KEELRC 2613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2613/eng@2018-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.