Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2017 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Gibson Akaranga Kidula v Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water & Natural Resources |
| Date Delivered: | 06 Dec 2018 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Kisumu |
| Case Action: | Ruling |
| Judge(s): | Mathews Nderi Nduma |
| Citation: | Gibson Akaranga Kidula v Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water & Natural Resources [2018] eKLR |
| Court Division: | Civil |
| County: | Kisumu |
| Extract: | 0 |
| Case Outcome: | Application dismissed |
| 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 EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2017
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
GIBSON AKARANGA KIDULA.........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE CABINET SECRETARY
MINISTRYOF WATER & NATURAL RESOURCES...................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant seeks enlargement of time for filing suit against the Attorney General.
2. The cause of action arose in 1998 when the Claimant voluntarily retired from government service. The Claimant seeks payment of Kshs.239,625 being the balance of the exit package he was entitled to. At the time the cause of action arose, limitation of time of matters based on employment contract was governed by section 4(1) of Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya.
3. The Court of Appeal in the Devicon Case, which decision has been followed strictly by the court found that enlargement of time for a suit based on contract was not permissible at all. The limitation period was six (6) years then.
4. The Applicant wants to file the claim about twenty (20) years’ from the date the cause of action arose.
5. The application is simply not permissible regardless of the cause of the inordinate delay. No plausible reason has been advanced in any event in this application.
6. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 6th day of December, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Momanyi & Co. advocates for the Applicant
Chrispo – Court Clerk
Please Wait. Searching ...