Rosa Jeruto Rop v Lavington Security Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a widow's attempt to enforce a Kshs 1.3 million workplace death award because she filed 12 years too late without asking for an extension.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Was the application filed outside the statutory limitation period?
- 2.If (i) above is in the negative, is the Applicant entitled to the prayers sought in the application?
- 3.Costs.
Key legal issues
#Whether the application to adopt the DOSH award was time-barred
Yes - filed over 12 years after the cause of action, beyond the six-year limit in Section 4(1)(c) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and without leave to extend time
The deceased died in January 2014; the DOSH award and demand notice issued in May 2015. Section 4(1)(c) bars actions to enforce an award after six years. The word 'may' allows extension under Sections 26, 27 and 28, but no evidence showed the Applicant sought such leave. Even assuming accrual after the objection period expired, the delay of over 12 years remained unexplained and inordinate.
Whether the court should allow the unopposed application despite the limitation defect
No - compliance with the law prevails over the convenience of allowing an unopposed application
Although the Respondent did not respond despite due service, and it would have been easy to allow the application as unopposed, the court held that justice requires the law on limitation to be complied with, lest the court rubberstamp a breach of the law it is supposed to enforce.
Legal principles established
#- Actions to enforce an award must be brought within six years under Section 4(1)(c) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and an out-of-time application requires leave for extension under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Act.
- A court should not rubberstamp an unopposed application that contravenes the very law it is meant to enforce.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion by the Applicant dated 4th May 2026 is hereby struck out for having been filed out of time without leave of the Court.
- 2.No order on costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act 2007
Relief refused
#Adoption of the DOSH award of Kshs. 1,008,000/- as judgment of the Court, decree for that sum, burial expenses of Kshs. 350,000/- and interest at 14% from 14th May 2015
Application filed outside the six-year limitation period for enforcing an award, without leave for extension of time
Costs
No order on costs (each party to bear their own costs was sought but the court made no order on costs).
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.
The notice of motion by the Applicant dated 4th May 2026 is hereby struck out for having been filed out of time without leave of the Court.
justice dictates that the law be complied with to avoid a situation where the Court shall be acting and rubberstamping a violation or breach of the very law that it is supposed to enforce.
No evidence was availed in Court that the Applicant indeed sought leave to have the six years period extended as to allow her file the instant application.
Issues in the judgment
#Prayer describes the DOSH award as 'made on 14th May 2015' while the narrative treats 14th May 2015 as the date of the demand notice for an award assessed earlier
Application dated 4th May 2026 but the ruling's introduction and the limitation analysis differ on the filing date phrasing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rosa Jeruto Rop v Lavington Security Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Misc. Application No. E014 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2727/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.