Maina Irungu v AAA Growers Limited [2018] KEELRC 605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that long-serving 'casual' workers are real employees entitled to a hearing before dismissal, awarding notice pay and compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the Claimant - casual labourer or employee entitled to protection
The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent; the casual label was a fiction, evidenced by his role as staff welfare chairman and receipt of payslips.
The Claimant served intermittently per the payment records, but the Respondent's own documents undermined the casual characterization: he chaired the staff welfare committee and the minutes of 6th June 2013 showed entitlements such as payslips, which casuals paid daily in cash do not receive. The court found the casual designation was nominal and that the Respondent's position was implausible for a reputable exporter.
Procedural fairness before dismissal
The Claimant was entitled to procedural safeguards before dismissal and was not accorded a hearing, entitling him to recover.
Once the Claimant was found to be an employee rather than a true casual, the termination required due process. The court found the circumstances of his exit disputed - he claimed summary dismissal over an accusation of urinating on the canteen; the farm manager denied any dismissal. The court accepted the Claimant's account sufficiently to hold that a hearing was required and its absence was an infraction for which he could recover.
Burden of proof on ancillary claims (NSSF, leave, house allowance)
The Claimant failed to prove the NSSF, leave and house allowance claims on a balance of probabilities.
The court applied the balance of probabilities standard: while the employment relationship and cessation of work in May 2015 were proved, the specific ancillary claims failed for want of evidence - no leave request records, no proof the Respondent defaulted on NSSF remittances, and the house allowance claim was contradicted by consolidated payslips. Judgment was therefore confined to notice pay and compensation.
Legal principles established
#- A purported casual labourer who works for years for an employer is entitled to procedural safeguards, including a hearing, before dismissal; casual status by name does not defeat substantive employment rights.
- Dismissal without a hearing entitles the employee to recover.
Court orders
#- 1.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 11,616/-
- 2.Six months' salary as compensation of Kshs. 69,696/-
- 3.Interest on the sums above at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina Irungu v AAA Growers Limited [2018] KEELRC 605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/605/eng@2018-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.