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

Omwengo v Judicial Service Commission & another (Cause 286 of 2015) [2017] KEELRC 102 (KLR) (2 November 2017) (Ruling)

[2017] KEELRC 102 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
102
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 102 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from a decision to strike out a claim for being time-barredCoramMA ONYANGO
Holding

The claim is time-barred and is incompetent, fatally defective, and an abuse of court process.

Facts

The claimant, Zaphaniah Sagana Omwengo, alleged that the Judicial Service Commission unlawfully terminated his services on January 17, 2012, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. The claim was filed on July 28, 2015.

Issues

  1. Whether the claim is statute time-barred
  2. Whether the Employment Act, 2007, applies to the claim

Reasoning

The Employment Act, 2007, provides a three-year limitation period for civil actions based on the Act or a contract of service. The claim was filed more than three years after the termination, thus being time-barred.

Outcome

The claim is struck out.

Orders

  • The claim is struck out for being time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22
Cases cited (4)
  • Peter Nyamai & & Other v M. J. Clarke Limited
  • Augustine Odhiambo Abiero v K.K. Security Ltd
  • Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission S.C. ConstitutionalApplication No. 2 of 2011
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others S.C Application No. 2 of 2012
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