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 Number 171 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 575 (KLR)

John Simiyu Wefwafwa v Krystalline Salt Limited [2016] KEELRC 575 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
5 September 2016
JRJames Rika
763 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 a salt worker paid per piece was a piece worker, not an employee, so his unfair dismissal claim failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, John Simiyu Wefwafwa, sued Krystalline Salt Limited alleging unfair and unlawful termination of employment on 22nd November 2014 after 15 years and 2 months of service, asserting that he had been employed as a Salt Miner on casual terms later converted to regular employment, and that he was dismissed for instituting a work injury compensation claim against the Respondent in Malindi SRMCC Number 302 of 2013. He sought one month's salary in lieu of notice, accrued annual leave pay, service pay, compensation for wrongful dismissal, underpayment, punitive damages, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The Respondent, through the Federation of Kenya Employers, contended that the Claimant was a Piece Worker paid Kshs. 100 per block of crystallized salt broken and Kshs. 220 per piece of salt unloaded from a Trailer, that he did not work continuously, and that he remained free to continue serving on piece work rates. The parties agreed to have the dispute determined on pleadings, submissions and documents. Applying the reasoning in its earlier decision in Cause Number 176 of 2015, Garama Karisa Masha v. Krystalline Salt Limited, the Court found the Claimant was a Piece Worker under Section 2 of the Employment Act 2007, paid a negotiated piece rate for quantified deliverables rather than a daily or periodic wage, and that the Respondent's Breaking Petty Cash records, which the Claimant did not challenge, contradicted his claim of casual then regular employment. His assertion that he was dismissed for suing over a work injury was found improbable, as he was free to return to piece work. The claim was rejected with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Employment status of the Claimant

Holding

The Claimant was a Piece Worker as defined under Section 2 of the Employment Act 2007, not a casual or regular employee

Reasoning

The Claimant was paid Kshs. 100 for breaking one piece of salt and Kshs. 220 per piece loaded onto a Trailer, with no time limit and no daily, weekly or monthly rate. Casual employees earn a defined daily wage while regular employees are paid at regular intervals; the Claimant was paid per quantified deliverable, and the Breaking Petty Cash records produced by the Respondent, which he did not challenge, corroborated this.

p. 2
02

Alleged unfair and unlawful termination

Holding

The claim of termination, allegedly for instituting a work injury compensation claim, was improbable and unsupported

Reasoning

The Claimant asserted he was dismissed for suing the Respondent for work injury compensation. The Court found this improbable given the Respondent's position that he was free to return and work under the piece work arrangement. The evidence did not support conversion from casual to regular employment, and the claims flowing from that assertion were unwarranted.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Casual employees are paid a defined wage per day; regular employees are paid at regular intervals; a worker paid a specific rate for quantified deliverables is a piece worker.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is rejected with no order on the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 2
  • Industrial Court [Procedure] RulesRule 27(1)(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • Garama Karisa Masha v. Krystalline Salt Limited
    Cause Number 176 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over disputes arising from employment, under the Industrial Court [Procedure] Rules 2010, Rule 27(1)(a)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Simiyu Wefwafwa v Krystalline Salt Limited [2016] KEELRC 575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause Number 171 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/575/eng@2016-09-05

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