Rashid Odhiambo Allogoh & 245 others v Haco Industries Limited [2015] KECA 376 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed 246 workers' claim that Haco Industries violated their rights, ruling they were legally casual workers under the old law and the workers failed to prove violations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appellants were casual employees under the repealed Employment Act
The appellants were casual workers within the prevailing laws despite the mode of payment and continuous service, since the repealed Employment Act lacked provisions equivalent to section 37(1) of the Employment Act 2007.
The court traced the definitional shift effected by section 37 of the Employment Act 2007, which converts casual service of three or more months into term contracts. It noted that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has recognised exceptions to hasty conversion, citing the 'monthly casual worker' concept, but held that because termination was not in issue and the repealed Act lacked a conversion provision, continuous service could not confer permanence on the appellants at the material time.
Whether the appellants were subjected to inhuman treatment, slavery and servitude contrary to sections 73 and 74 of the retired Constitution
No violation of sections 73 and 74 was established; the employment relationship was voluntary, wages and overtime were paid, and the respondent's conduct did not breach the governing statutes.
The court found the employment relationship voluntary with no compulsion, and payments for wages and overtime evidenced by the appellants' signatures. The appellages neither quoted specific provisions of the Regulation of Wages Act nor led comparative evidence of underpayment, merely annexing a collective bargaining agreement. The court applied the rule that he who alleges must prove, and declined to conduct a fishing expedition on the appellants' behalf.
Whether the respondent violated the appellants' freedom of association under section 80 of the retired Constitution
No violation was found; joining or forming a trade union was beyond the exclusive control of the respondent, and the unions made no aggressive recruitment attempt.
The appellants contended that lack of appointment letters prevented them from joining unions. The court held that union membership was not within the respondent's exclusive control, that the unions did not actively recruit the appellants, and that the appellants had legal recourse to enforce their right of association. Having found them legally casual workers, the respondent did not breach section 80.
The standard of review on a first appeal
As a first appellate court, this Court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions, making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
The court adopted the classic statement of the duty of a first appellate court from Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd [1968] EA 123, which permits departure from trial findings of fact where the trial judge failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities, or where the impression based on demeanour is inconsistent with the evidence generally.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
- The burden of proving an alleged constitutional violation lies on the party alleging it; a mere allegation without specific evidence fails.
- Under the repealed Employment Act, an employee engaged and paid as a casual worker remained a casual employee despite continuous service, absent provisions equivalent to section 37(1) of the Employment Act 2007; courts should not hastily convert casual service into permanent employment merely because payment was not made at the end of each day.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed as lacking merit
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- High Court Misc. Application No. 1520 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court in a constitutional (fundamental rights) application under section 84 of the retired Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mistry V. Naran Mulji & Co v Ali (Civil Appeal E055 of 2023) [2026] KECA 497 (KLR)[2026] KECA 497 (KLR)13 Mar 2026followed
- Sabonsi & 6 others v Sheer Logic Management Consultants (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E151, E153, E154, E156, E157, E158 & E159 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)4 Sept 2025
- Total Security Surveillance Limited v Wekesa (Appeal E146 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)30 Jun 2025followed
- Kenya National Union of Nurses v Trustees of the County Pension Fund & 8 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission(Interested Party) [2020] KEELRC 92 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 92 (KLR)10 Dec 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rashid Odhiambo Allogoh & 245 others v Haco Industries Limited [2015] KECA 376 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/376/eng@2015-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.