Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 509 of 2014· [2016] KEELRC 10 (KLR)

Boc Kenya Limited v Amos Manoa Erastus [2016] KEELRC 10 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
19 September 2016
MMM. Mbaru
2,700 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A worker paid monthly based on the amount of work done is a piece-rate employee, not a permanent one, even after 30 years of service.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, who described himself as a casual employee engaged by the Respondent in 1982, claimed that on 31st December 2013 he was wrongfully, unlawfully and unilaterally terminated, declared redundant or retired after 30 years of continuous service, without notice, hearing, or payment of terminal dues. He sought notice pay, house allowance, service pay, accumulated leave and leave allowance, long service and baggage allowances, substantial overtime claims, 12 months' damages for wrongful dismissal, unremitted NSSF and NHIF contributions and transport allowance, and a declaration that his termination was unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act. The Respondent's case was that the Claimant was a piece-rate worker paid by invoices raised monthly for cylinders cleaned and painted, was never a permanent employee, was not unionised and could not claim CBA dues, and that he left on his own volition. The Court framed the central question as the nature of the employment relationship. Reviewing the varying monthly payments made in cash, later by payslip and bank transfer, the absence of a written contract, the lack of unionisation and the Claimant's failure to challenge the payslips, and applying sections 2 and 18 of the Employment Act, the Court found the Claimant was a piece-work employee. Having been paid each month for work done, he could not claim dues attaching to other forms of employment. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the employment relationship - casual, permanent or piece-rate

Holding

The Claimant was a piece-work employee whose monthly payments varied with the amount of work performed

Reasoning

The Court noted the Claimant was paid irregular, varying amounts each month, initially in cash, then via payslip and bank transfer, based on cylinders cleaned and painted, without a written contract. He was not unionised and never claimed CBA entitlements. Applying the definition of piece work in section 2 and payment provisions in section 18 of the Employment Act, the Court found the relationship was piece-work employment despite the 30-year duration.

p. 5
02

Whether section 37 of the Employment Act automatically converted the Claimant to permanent terms

Holding

Section 37 did not apply; the work was specific piece-rate work not converted to permanent or contractual terms

Reasoning

The Respondent submitted that the Claimant's engagement was dictated by work done and remained unchanged for the duration of employment. The Court's finding on the nature of payments as piece work effectively disposed of the claim that continuous service converted the engagement, and all dues were paid for work performed each month.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Piece-work employment is a recognised form of employment in law and a piece-rate employee's dues are payable under section 18 of the Employment Act, in proportion to work performed
  • Where an employee has been paid each month for work done on piece-rate terms, he cannot claim terminal dues attaching to other forms of employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 2
  • Employment Actsection 18
  • Employment Actsection 37
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 47
  • Employment Actsection 74
  • Limitation of Actions Act

Cases cited (4)

  • Joseph R Matoka versus Severin Sea Lodge
    [2016] eKLR
  • Margaret Wachuka Mwangi versus Nyale Estate Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Shadrack Kahungani Mukwana versus Wines of the World Limited
    Cause No. 1470 of 2013
  • Charles Mutua Mwanzia versus Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd
    Cause No. 2048 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; Labour Institutions framework)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Boc Kenya Limited v Amos Manoa Erastus [2016] KEELRC 10 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 509 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/10/eng@2016-09-19

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