SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Benedict Odhiambo v Eldoret Water & Sanitation Company Limited [2014] KEELRC 1126 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 1126 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1126
Citation
[2014] KEELRC 1126 (KLR)
Decided
11 July 2014
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplicant seeks to extend the time for filing a suit and regularize the claimCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The application is denied, and the respondent is ordered to pay the agreed sum of Kshs.66,758.40 to the applicant

Facts

The applicant's employment was terminated in 2008, and he failed to file a suit within 3 years as required by the Employment Act. He claimed delay due to settlement attempts through the Labour office.

Issues

  • Whether the applicant can extend the time for filing the suit
  • Whether the respondent should pay the agreed sum of Kshs.66,758.40

Reasoning

The court finds the applicant did not establish justification for extending the time for filing the suit, and the respondent's acknowledgment of the agreed sum confers a rejuvenated cause of action.

Outcome

Denied

Orders

  • The respondent to pay the applicant the agreed Kshs.66,758.40 by 1.09.2014
  • Interest to be payable at court rates from the date of this ruling till full payment

Remedies

  • Payment of Kshs.66,758.40 by the respondent

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case