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

Dickson Oruko Nyakach & another v Chemilil Sugar Co Ltd [2015] KEELRC 11 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 11 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
11
Citation
[2015] KEELRC 11 (KLR)
Decided
11 December 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a decision to grant leave to file suit out of timeCoramMAUREEN ONYANGO
Holding

The claim is not time barred as there was a fresh cause of action arising from the acknowledgement and part payment on 2nd February, 2011. The limitation period for the debt is six years from that date.

Facts

The applicants were employed by Chemilil Sugar Co. Ltd. and were terminated in 2010. They filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour in 2011, which led to a determination that payment be made to them. However, only part of the terminal benefits was paid.

Issues

  1. Whether the employment was terminated in 2010
  2. Whether the claim for wrongful termination can be brought after 3 years
  3. Whether the time for filing the suit can be extended
  4. Whether the time stops running during conciliation or lodging a complaint to the Ministry of Labour
  5. Whether the applicants are entitled to the prayers sought for
  6. Who is entitled to the costs of the application

Reasoning

The court found that there was an acknowledgement and part payment of the debt owed to the applicants, which led to a fresh cause of action. The time for the claim started running on the date of the acknowledgement and payment.

Outcome

The application is allowed, not on the grounds set out in the application, but on grounds that there was a fresh debt accruing on 2nd February, 2011 whose limitation period has not expired.

Orders

  • No Orders for costs for this application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act 2007
  • Limitation of Actions Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case