Maina v Ndirangu & 2 others (Civil Appeal 55 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1565 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a church worker's employment claim because she sued the wrong parties and produced no proof of an employment relationship.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an employment relationship existed between the appellant and the respondents
- 2.Whether the ELRC erred when it found that the appellant was wrongly suited (sued the wrong parties)
Key legal issues
#Whether an employment relationship existed between the appellant and the respondents
No employment relationship was proved; the appellant produced no records or witnesses to corroborate her claim of a monthly salary, and the alleged dismissal call was unsubstantiated
An allegation of monthly payment, if proved, would negate casual employment, but the appellant failed to produce records or corroborating witnesses. She did not compel production of employment records under Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Under section 107 of the Evidence Act the burden lay on her, on a balance of probabilities, to prove the contract of service and its termination; that burden was not discharged.
Whether the respondents were proper parties to the suit
The ELRC did not err in finding the appellant wrongly suited; her engagement was through the LCC, which was the proper party but was never enjoined
On the record the appellant's engagement was through the Local Church Committee; the 2nd respondent's mandate was limited to property, the 1st respondent had no role, and the 3rd respondent acted only as chair of the LCC. Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemu, a suit can be struck out where a wrong party is enjoined. The claim against the wrong parties therefore properly failed.
Legal principles established
#- A Court of Appeal will not normally interfere with a finding of fact by the trial court unless it is based on no evidence, on a misapprehension of the evidence, or the judge demonstrably acted on wrong principles
- The legal burden of proof lies on the party who invokes the aid of the law and asserts the affirmative of the issue; he who asserts must prove
- A suit may be struck out where a wrong party is enjoined in it
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.No order as to costs in view of the appellant's indigence
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (statutory provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Reversal of the ELRC decision and award of monetary claims (declarations, severance pay, underpayment arrears, service pay, unremitted statutory deductions, overtime, public holiday pay, certificate of service and interest)
The appellant failed to prove an employment relationship with the respondents and sued the wrong parties, the proper employer (the LCC) not being enjoined
Costs
No order as to costs, in view of the appellant's indigence
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. In view of the appellant’s indigence, we make no order as to costs.
Further, the proper employer, the LCC, was never enjoined. The ELRC’s decision dismissing the claim was therefore sound.
A suit can be struck out if a wrong party is enjoined in it.
In an action anchored on a contractual relationship the burden of proving the existence of a contract, performance of conditions precedent, breach and damages, lies with the claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Ndirangu & 2 others (Civil Appeal 55 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1565 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1565/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.