Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2017] KEELRC 2012 (KLR)

Ogaro v Lavington Security; Kenya National Private Security Workers Union (Interested Party) (Cause 281 of 2013) [2017] KEELRC 2012 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (Industrial Court)
22 September 2017
2,689 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 security guard labelled a casual worker for five years won because Kenyan law converts long-term casual jobs into formal contracts with full protections.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance employment claim filed on 30th October 2013 by a security guard, initially through the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union as Interested Party, alleging violation of the Labour Relations Act, unpaid notice, denial of leave for six years, underpayment, unpaid house allowance, unpaid gratuity and unpaid overtime including public holidays. The Claimant died on 6th August 2015 and was substituted by Jane Magoma Nyamosi, administrator of his estate, after which the case proceeded by written submissions. The Respondent asserted the Claimant was a casual employee engaged on 4th September 2006 at Kshs. 150 per day inclusive of house allowance, who deserted duty on 1st April 2011 and was summarily dismissed on 12th April 2011. The court framed three issues: casual status, fairness of the summary dismissal, and entitlement to the prayers sought. Holding that the statutory definition of a casual employee was incompatible with nearly five years of continuous service, and noting a written monthly contract dated 1st October 2010, the court found the Claimant was not a casual employee. The summary dismissal was held unfair: the employer made no attempt to establish lawful cause for the absence and afforded no hearing under section 41, and the Claimant's salary demand could not justify dismissal. The court awarded pay in lieu of notice of Kshs. 8,651.45, underpayments of Kshs. 114,769.95 computed on the consolidated night-watchman wage with 15% house allowance, overtime of Kshs. 39,989 for 12 months, and annual leave of Kshs. 34,990 for 121.33 days. Gratuity was refused for want of five years' service. Maureen Onyango, Judge, delivered the judgment on 22nd September 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the employment - casual or term contract

Holding

The Claimant was not a casual employee; he had been in continuous employment from 2006 to 2011 and there was a monthly-paid renewable term contract dated 1st October 2010

Reasoning

The statutory definition of a casual employee is one paid at the end of each day and engaged for not longer than 24 hours at a time. Continuous employment spanning nearly five years, and a written contract providing a monthly salary of Kshs. 5,000 on a renewable 3-month term, contradicted the Respondent's averment of casual engagement. Section 37 provides for automatic conversion of casual employment to a term contract.

p. 4
02

Fairness of the summary dismissal

Holding

The summary dismissal was unfair - both without valid reason and without compliance with fair procedure

Reasoning

Section 44(4)(a) permits dismissal for absence without leave or lawful cause, but the employer made no attempt to find out whether there was lawful cause for the absence. No hearing under section 41 was conducted despite the Respondent's claim of attempted disciplinary hearings, which was not reflected in the letters of 7th and 12th April 2011. The Claimant's demand for a salary increase was not denied and could not justify dismissal under section 46(h).

p. 5
03

Remedies - notice, underpayments, house allowance, overtime and annual leave

Holding

Notice pay, underpayments computed on consolidated wage with 15% house allowance, overtime for 12 months and annual leave for 4 years 8 months were awarded; gratuity refused

Reasoning

Since remedies are based on salary, the court established the applicable minimum wage for a night guard (the higher wage, the Claimant having worked both shifts), fixed the gross salary at Kshs. 8,651.45 including 15% house allowance, and computed underpayments over the employment period. Overtime was based on 72 hours worked per week against the 52 maximum hours in the applicable Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) Order, awarded for 12 months as a continuing injury. Annual leave was computed at 26 working days per year for 4 years 8 months.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A casual employee, as statutorily defined, cannot remain a casual employee for a prolonged period; continuous casual employment converts to a term contract under section 37 of the Employment Act
  • Summary dismissal for absenteeism requires the employer to make an effort to establish whether there was lawful cause for the absence and to hear the employee under section 41 before dismissal
  • An employee's demand for a salary increase or filing of a complaint against the employer is not a fair reason for dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the Claimant was not a casual employee
  2. 2.Declaration that the summary dismissal was unfair (without valid reason and without fair procedure)
  3. 3.Kshs. 8,651.45 in pay in lieu of notice
  4. 4.Underpayments of Kshs. 114,769.95 (including house allowance, computed on consolidated wage)
  5. 5.Overtime of Kshs. 39,989.00 for 12 months
  6. 6.Annual leave pay of Kshs. 34,990 for 121.33 days
  7. 7.Refusal of gratuity

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActAct No. 12 of 2007 (generally)
  • Employment Act (Repealed, 1977)Definition of casual employee
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 35(1)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 37 (Conversion of casual employment to term contract)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 41 (Notification and hearing before termination)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 42(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 44(3), (4)(a) and (4)(b) (Summary dismissal)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 46(h) (Reasons for termination or discipline)
  • Employment Act, 2007s. 87
  • Regulation of Wages (Protective Security Services) OrderMaximum weekly hours; hourly rate formula; annual leave; gratuity
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act and Employment Act (dispute reported to Minister for Labour; Certificate of Disagreement issued)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ogaro v Lavington Security; Kenya National Private Security Workers Union (Interested Party) (Cause 281 of 2013) [2017] KEELRC 2012 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/2012/eng@2017-09-22

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