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. 20 of 2014· [2016] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)

Joseah Kipkorir Langat v Kapkatet Tea Factory Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
16 June 2016
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,139 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a tea factory worker on seasonal terms had no unfair dismissal case, because letting a seasonal contract lapse is not a termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, Joseah Kipkorir Langat, sued Kapkatet Tea Factory Company Limited alleging unfair termination of employment. He claimed he was employed on permanent and pensionable terms in January 2000 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 16,580, rose from manufacturing labourer to acting supervisor by 2005, and was in 2012 sent on compulsory leave and denied the opportunity to resume work, without notice or reasons, contrary to Section 43 of the Employment Act. He sought reinstatement, twelve months' gross salary, severance pay of Kshs. 1,193,767.20, acting allowance, unpaid leave, house, medical and leave allowances and one month's salary in lieu of notice, totalling Kshs. 2,354,054.34, plus costs and interest. The respondent denied permanent employment, contending the claimant was engaged only as demand for work necessitated as a seasonal employee, and that non-renewal of a seasonal contract was not termination attracting terminal dues. The court framed four issues: whether there was a termination; whether it was wrongful, unfair and unlawful; entitlement to relief; and costs. Examining the documentary evidence, particularly the claimant's pay advise slips showing payment varying monthly for days worked, the court found these consistent with seasonal employment and preferred the respondent's case. It held there was no termination of employment, rendering the remaining issues moot. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's employment was terminated

Holding

No termination was established; the evidence showed seasonal employment and non-renewal of contract rather than dismissal

Reasoning

The court examined the claimant's pay advise slips, which showed payment at month's end only for days worked, varying monthly, consistent with seasonal employment. The respondent's master rolls and casual agreement form supported this. Weighing the evidence, the court preferred the respondent's account over the claimant's assertion of permanent and pensionable employment from 2000.

p. 3
02

Whether any unfair termination and terminal dues entitlement arose

Holding

Having found no termination, the claims for unfair termination and terminal dues fell away

Reasoning

The claims under Sections 43 and 49 of the Employment Act presuppose a termination. Since the court found non-renewal of a seasonal contract rather than termination, the subsidiary issues of unfairness and entitlement to the various heads of relief became moot and were not determined on their merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where pay records show payment only for days worked month to month, the terms of service point to seasonal rather than permanent employment
  • Non-renewal of a seasonal contract does not constitute termination of employment attracting terminal dues

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49(1)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49(3)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007 reliefs claimed under Sections 43 and 49)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

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, "Joseah Kipkorir Langat v Kapkatet Tea Factory Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 20 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1081/eng@2016-06-16

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