Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim filed 8 October 2013 (number not stated)· [2014] KEELRC 994 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe & Leather Workers Union v Slapper Shoe Industries Limited [2014] KEELRC 994 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 May 2014
789 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that when a fixed-term work contract expires and isn't renewed, that isn't unfair redundancy unless the worker proves a real expectation of renewal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Union filed a Memorandum of Claim on 8 October 2013 alleging unlawful redundancy of seventeen Grievants employed by Slapper Shoe Industries Ltd and seeking reinstatement. The dispute had been reported to the Cabinet Secretary, Labour, conciliated without agreement. The Respondent admitted employing the Grievants on one-year renewable fixed term contracts which were extended but expired on 31 May 2013, citing low business volumes and asserting terminal dues were paid. The Court framed two questions: whether the Grievants were unfairly declared redundant or their contracts expired by effluxion of time, and the appropriate remedy. Holding that the claims were pleaded in contract, the Court held it could not look beyond contractual terms to examine reasons for non-renewal; the Union had not pleaded legitimate expectation or unfair labour practice. The contracts, renewable at the Respondent's sole discretion, expired by effluxion of time. The Court observed that Kenyan statute, unlike South Africa's s 186(b) LRA and England's s 95 Employment Rights Act 1996, does not treat non-renewal of fixed term contracts as unfair termination. It declined to apply Sammy Muhia v KPLC (2006) eKLR as decided under the pre-2010 legal framework. The Memorandum of Claim was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Grievants were declared redundant unfairly or their contracts expired by effluxion of time

Holding

The contracts expired by effluxion of time; the Respondent merely opted not to renew them, and the claim as pleaded did not permit examination of redundancy

Reasoning

Clause 2 of each contract made renewal subject to the Respondent's sole discretion. The Union pleaded the causes of action without alleging legitimate expectation of renewal or unfair labour practice, so the Court could not look beyond the contract terms. The documentary evidence showed non-renewal and payment of terminal dues, not redundancy.

p. 2
02

Whether failure to renew a fixed term contract can amount to unfair termination or redundancy under Kenyan law

Holding

Unlike South Africa (s 186(b) LRA) and England (s 95 Employment Rights Act 1996), Kenya has no statutory regime treating non-renewal as unfair termination or redundancy

Reasoning

The Court noted comparative statutory provisions that bring non-renewal within unfair dismissal regimes, but held that no equivalent Kenyan provision exists, so the comparative discussion was inappropriate to the case before it.

p. 2
03

Weight to be given to Sammy Muhia & Others v KPLC (2006) eKLR

Holding

The Court declined to apply the authority because it was decided under a fundamentally different legal framework predating the Constitution 2010 and the Employment Act 2007

Reasoning

The 2010 Constitution introduced a right to fair labour practices absent under the old Constitution, and the Employment Act 2007 repealed cap 226; authorities decided under the old regime must be applied cautiously.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where claims are pleaded in contract, the Court cannot go outside the contractual terms to examine reasons for non-renewal or alleged unfair redundancy absent a plea of legitimate expectation or unfair labour practice
  • Failure to renew a fixed term contract is not placed under the statutory unfair termination regime in Kenya as it is in South Africa and England
  • Pre-2010 authorities decided under the old Constitution and repealed Employment Act (cap 226) must be relied on with caution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Memorandum of Claim filed in Court on 8 October 2013 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya2010 Constitution (right to fair labour practices)
  • Employment ActEmployment Act, 2007
  • Employment Act (repealed)cap 226 (now repealed)
  • Labour Relations Act (South Africa)section 186(b)
  • Employment Rights Act, 1996 (England)section 95

Cases cited (2)

  • Sammy Muhia & Others v KPLC Co. Ltd
    (2006) eKLR
  • University of Stirling v University and College Union
    UKEATS/0001/11/B1
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the trade dispute referred after conciliation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe & Leather Workers Union v Slapper Shoe Industries Limited [2014] KEELRC 994 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Memorandum of Claim filed 8 October 2013 (number not stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/994/eng@2014-05-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.