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

Charles Kipng'eno Keter v Kimbilio Daima Sacco Ltd [2016] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1173 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1173
Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)
Decided
17 May 2016
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

TypePreliminary ObjectionPostureRespondent's Preliminary ObjectionCoramD. K. N. Marete
The court finds the claim time barred and strikes out the claims with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The claimant entered into employment with the respondent in 2002, and criminal charges were filed against him. These charges were dismissed.

Issues

  • Whether the claimant's statements of claim are statutorily time barred
  • If the answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative, whether the claims ought to be struck out in the first instance with costs to the respondents
  • Whether the claims constitute an abuse of the court process

Reasoning

The court rules that the claim is time barred due to the limitation periods set by the Limitation of Actions Act and the Employment Act, and that the claims are an abuse of the court process.

Outcome

The claims are struck out with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The claims are struck out with costs to the respondent.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Limitation of Actions Act
  • Employment Act, 2007
Cases cited (2)
  • Section 4 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
  • Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
⚠ 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