Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Case 79 of 2002 |
---|---|
Parties: | David Njue Kabungo v County Council of Nyandarua & 3 others |
Date Delivered: | 01 Dec 2004 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | High Court at Embu |
Case Action: | |
Judge(s): | Isaac Lenaola |
Citation: | David Njue Kabungo v County Council of Nyandarua & 3 others [2004] eKLR |
Case Summary: | [Ruling] Preliminary Objection - Section 3 of the Public Authorities Limitation Act - whether cause of action brought within time |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
HCC NO. 79 OF 2002
DAVID NJUE KABUNGO ……………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DAVID NJUE KABUNGO ……………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
COUNTY COUNCIL OF NYANDARUA…..1ST DEFENDANT
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION….2ND DEFENDANT
MINISTRYOF LOCAL AUTHORITY …….3RD DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………4TH DEFENDANT
RULING ON A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
1. The Objection by Counsel by Counsel for the 2nd Defendant to the hearing of the suit is premised on Section 3 of the Public Authorities Limitation Act, Cap.39. That sub-Section provides as follows:-
“No proceedings founded on contact shall be brought after the end of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.” It is argued that the cause of action herein arose in 1995 and the suit herein filed in 1999, a year after time had lapsed.
2. In response, Counsel for the Plaintiff argues that the cause of action arose in 1999 when the Plaintiff was dismissed from service and therefore the suit was filed well within time.
3. I have perused the Plaint and it is clear that the Plaintiff is challenging his dismissal from Public Service on 8.12.1999. (paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Plaint.) However he also seeks certain payments backdated to 1995 when he was suspended
without those payments. The latter fact notwithstanding there is no reason why I should strike out the suit.
4. I think the Preliminary Objection was raised without too much thought and clarity of issues. The substance of the suit was a claim that arose in 1999 and the suit itself was filed on 9.12.2002. I think it is not filed in contravention of Section 3 (2) of the Act and it must proceed.
5. I overrule the Preliminary Objection with costs and order that parties do proceed and fix early hearing dates in this matter. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered in open court on this 1st day December 2004.
I.LENAOLA
AG. JUDGE
Mr. Okwaro for Plaintiff
N/A for other parties
I.LENAOLA
AG. JUDGE.