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 277 of 2017· [2018] KEELRC 112 (KLR)

Ariton Kombo Mukabana v Wonder Feeds Limited [2018] KEELRC 112 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
1 November 2018
MMM. Mbaru
1,142 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

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a worker's claim because his fixed term contract simply expired, and most of his money claims were filed too late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued Wonder Feeds Limited seeking underpayments of Kshs.57,030, leave allowances of Kshs.51,204.30, service gratuity of Kshs.51,888, notice pay of Kshs.10,377.70 and compensation for unfair termination. He alleged he was employed from 2007 as a casual labourer, confirmed in December 2012, and that his employment ended without notice, reasons or a hearing, with terminal dues unpaid. He testified that after joining a union in 2014 he was directed on 24th November 2014 to reapply for employment, declined because he had never previously been required to reapply, and was not engaged after his contract ended on 24th December 2014. The respondent, through its Assistant Human Resource and Administrative officer Edwin Wekesa, testified that the claimant was on contract, was issued notice of the expiry of the last contract with an option to reapply, opted not to apply, and was paid his terminal dues including leave in lieu and overtime. The court held that the claimant's casual employment had been converted into written fixed term contracts renewed annually from 2012, and that the last contract ran from 2nd January 2014 to 21st December 2014. Having been given notice and an option to reapply, the claimant's choice not to apply lawfully ended the employment; the employer could not be compelled to retain him, which would amount to prohibited servitude. Under section 90 of the Employment Act only claims within three years of filing were competent, rendering the underpayment and leave claims time barred. Service gratuity was not a contractual benefit and general damages were unavailable absent a basis outside section 49 remedies. The claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the employment relationship and mode of termination

Holding

The claimant was converted from casual employment to a fixed term contract which expired on 21st December 2014; his failure to reapply ended the employment lawfully

Reasoning

The court found that casual employment was converted to written fixed term contracts renewed annually from 2012. The last contract ran from 2nd January 2014 to 21st December 2014. The claimant was notified of its end and given an option to reapply but declined. Compelling the employer to retain him would amount to servitude prohibited by section 5 of the Employment Act.

p. 2
02

Limitation of the claims

Holding

Only claims within three years of filing (from 28th June 2014) are competent; underpayment claims (2011-2012) and leave claims (2008-2013) are time barred

Reasoning

Section 90 of the Employment Act limits claims to three years before filing. The claim was filed on 29th June 2017, so only the last fixed term contract period is actionable. The underpayment and leave claims fall outside this window and are extinguished by operation of law.

p. 2
03

Service gratuity and general damages

Holding

Service gratuity was not a contractual benefit and general damages were not established, remedies being confined to section 49 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The applicable fixed term contract made no provision for service gratuity. The claimant's general damages claim failed because statutory remedies under section 49 govern, and the claimant did not establish any basis for damages outside those remedies, especially where termination resulted from expiry of a fixed term contract.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a fixed term contract ends and the employee is given notice and an option to reapply but opts not to, the employer is not bound to retain the employee and no unfair termination arises
  • Under section 90 of the Employment Act, claims arising from continuous employment may only go back three years from the date of filing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 8
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 10(1)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 10(3)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 37
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 5
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 90
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim for unfair termination and terminal dues)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ariton Kombo Mukabana v Wonder Feeds Limited [2018] KEELRC 112 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause 277 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/112/eng@2018-11-01

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