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

Crispus Mavuthi Kathuma v Inspector General & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 1828 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1828 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1828
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1828 (KLR)
Decided
22 March 2019
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

TypePetition for Violation of Constitutional RightsPosturePetitioner's Petition Struck OutCoramRadido Stephen
The Petition is struck out.

Facts

Petitioner Crispus Mavuthi Kathuma was dismissed from the Kenya Police Force on 17 December 1990. He filed a Petition alleging that his dismissal violated his rights under Articles 22(1), 27(1), 47(1), 47(2), 48, and 50(1) and (2)(q) of the Constitution, and Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.

Issues

  • Whether the Petitioner's rights under Articles 22(1), 27(1), 47(1), 47(2), 48, and 50(1) and (2)(q) of the Constitution were violated by his dismissal.
  • Whether the Petitioner's rights under Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 were violated by his dismissal.

Reasoning

The Court upholds the preliminary objection and finds that the Petitioner's rights were not violated, as the alleged violations occurred before the commencement of the Employment Act, 2007. The Petitioner's reliance on the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is deemed to be an attempt to circumvent the law of limitation.

Outcome

Petition Struck Out

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
  • Employment Act
  • Limitation of Actions Act
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (1)
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others (2012) eKLR
⚠ 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