Fredrick Ondiek Aroko v Moi University & another [2016] KEELRC 363 (KLR)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 363
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 363 (KLR)
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabor DisputePostureRespondent's preliminary objection to the Claimant's claimCoramD. K. N. Marete
Holding
The preliminary objection is allowed, and the claim is dismissed with costs.
Facts
The claimant lost his employment with the respondent in 1998 and filed a previous case in Eldoret CMCC No. 174 of 2003.
Issues
- Claim is time barred by Section 90 of the Employment Act
- Claim contravenes the Limitation of Actions Act
- Claim is res judicata
- Claim is an abuse of court process
Reasoning
The claim is time barred by Section 90 of the Employment Act and the Limitation of Actions Act. The introduction of the 2nd Respondent is a camouflage to mislead the court. The claimant failed to disclose material facts in a previous case.
Outcome
Appeal outcome
Orders
- Each party bears its costs of the preliminary objection
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Employment Act
- 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.
Loading judgment…