Automated Summary
Key Facts
Joseph Sebastian Ringo was transferred from Kenya Railways Corporation to Rift Valley Railways on 30th October 2006 under a concession agreement. His employment with Rift Valley Railways was terminated on 15th December 2006. Ringo claimed he was acquitted of criminal charges (Case No.2228 of 2006) and that Kenya Railways failed to pay retrenchment dues (Kshs.772,751.00). The court ruled the claim was time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act (3-year limit) and section 87 of the Kenya Railways Act (12-month limit), as the Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 17th November 2014, over 7 years after the transfer. The court also found jurisdictional issues and that the transfer severed his employment with Kenya Railways, making the respondent liable under the new employer's obligations.
Issues
- The second issue concerned the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya to entertain the claim. The respondent contested the court's authority to determine the matter, while the claimant argued for its jurisdiction based on the nature of the employment dispute. The court's decision on jurisdiction was intertwined with the statute of limitations analysis.
- The court was required to determine if the claim filed by Joseph Sebastian Ringo against Kenya Railways Corporation is statute barred under the provisions of section 90 of the Employment Act (2007) and section 87 of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act. The respondent argued the claim was filed outside the 3-year limitation period under the Employment Act and 12-month period under the Kenya Railways Act. The claimant's transfer to Rift Valley Railways in 2006 and subsequent termination in 2006 formed the basis of this issue, with the suit filed in 2014.
Holdings
The court dismissed the claim as time-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act and section 87 of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act. The claimant's employment transfer to Rift Valley Railways in 2006 terminated his relationship with the respondent, and the 2014 filing exceeded the 3-year limitation period under the Employment Act. The Kenya Railways Act's 12-month period was also not met. The suit was further dismissed for lacking jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Remedies
The suit is dismissed due to being time-barred, and the costs are awarded to the respondent.
Legal Principles
The court determined that the claim was statute-barred under section 90 of the Employment Act (3-year limit) and section 87 of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act (12-month limit). It emphasized the mandatory nature of these time restrictions and held that claims arising from employment cessation in 2006 could not be filed in 2014. The decision also clarified that employment transfer to Rift Valley Railways terminated the claimant's contract with Kenya Railways, making the Limitation of Actions Act inapplicable.
Precedent Name
- Charles M Shitiavai v City Council of Nairobi
- Wrigley Company (EA) Limited v AG & 3 others
- Langat v Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation
- Benson Asiego Mocheo v Kenya Railways Corporation
- Francis Mwamburi Mudegu v African Boot Company Limited
- Francis Mwangi & Others v City Council of Nairobi & Others
- Elizabeth Washeke & 62 others v Airtel Networks (K) Limited & Another
Cited Statute
- Pensions Act, Cap 189
- Kenya Railways Corporation Act, Chapter 397 of the Laws of Kenya
- Employment Act, No.11 of 2011
- Employment Act, Cap 226 (repealed)
Judge Name
M. Mbau
Passage Text
- Under section 16A of the Pensions Act it provides that... an employee such as the claimant was to be retained in employment under the Pensions Act, Cap 189, until the payment in full of due gratuity payable to him. I however find, with the transfer and concession agreement between the respondent and Rift Valley Railways as set out above, his employment was transferred to a new employer. Retention of in the service of the respondent was thus broken by the transfer. The Pension Act is therefore not applicable to the claimant.
- Section 90 of the Employment Act provides as follows; 90. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or a contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained or in the case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after the cessation thereof.
- The objections by the respondent with regard to the suit being time barred is allowed. The suit is hereby dismissed. Costs to the respondent.