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. 1592 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 971 (KLR)

Jared Mangera & 11 others v Professional Clean Care Limited [2018] KEELRC 971 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
1 October 2018
HWHellen S. Wasilwa
1,489 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that when a cleaning contract ends, tied employment can end lawfully, and employees who don't sign representative authority lose their claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Twelve claimants, employed as Process Minders by Professional Clean Care Limited from June 2010 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 13,000, sued for damages for termination on account of alleged redundancy and unpaid severance of Kshs. 5,127,500, plus compensation of up to 12 months' wages for wrongful dismissal. Their services ended on 31st August 2014 when the Respondent's cleaning contract with East African Breweries Limited came to an end. The Respondent denied the claim, asserting the claimants were engaged on fixed term contracts expressly contingent on the continuation of the EABL tender, that each received one month's notice and all terminal benefits, and raised objections to the representative nature of the suit for want of authority under Rule 9 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 and to limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act. The court found that the 1st Claimant, the only witness, exhibited no signed authority from the other claimants, so the cases of the 2nd to 12th Claimants stood dismissed as unprosecuted. On the merits, the court examined the 1st Claimant's written contract, which tied employment to the EABL maintenance contract, and held that when that contract ended on 31.8.2014 the employment had to cease without wrongdoing by the Respondent; the termination was neither unfair nor a redundancy. The entire claim was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Authority to prosecute a representative suit

Holding

The 2nd to 12th Claimants' cases were unprosecuted and stood dismissed because no signed authority was exhibited

Reasoning

CW1 Jared Mangera was the only claimant to give evidence. He asserted the others had authorised him but produced no written authority as required by Rule 9 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010. The court held their cases remained unprosecuted and dismissed them.

p. 2
02

Whether termination on cessation of the underlying tender was unfair

Holding

The contract was contingent on the EABL maintenance contract; when that contract ended, the employment lawfully ceased

Reasoning

The written contract stated employment would subsist as long as the Respondent remained the maintenance contractor for EABL. The Respondent proved the EABL contract ended on 31.8.2014. The employment therefore ceased by operation of the contract terms, not by any wrongdoing, and was not unfair termination nor redundancy.

p. 2
03

Claim for severance pay

Holding

The claim failed because the termination was not a redundancy

Reasoning

Having found the contracts ended by effluxion of the contingency on which they were founded, the court held there was no dismissal at all and no redundancy, so no severance was payable under the Employment Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employment contract is expressly contingent on the continuation of the employer's underlying contract, the employment ceases when that contract ends without wrongdoing by the employer, and such cessation is not unfair termination or redundancy
  • A representative suit requires exhibited authority from the other claimants as required by Rule 9 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010; absent such authority, the claims of the unrepresented claimants stand dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The cases of the 2nd to 12th Claimants stand dismissed for want of authority to prosecute the suit
  2. 2.The 1st Claimant's claim is dismissed for lack of merit
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 90
  • Employment Act 2007Section 10(2)(e)
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 4 Rule 3
  • Industrial Court Procedure Rules 2010Rule 9, Rule 9(3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Trade Bank Ltd Vs LZ Engineering Construction Ltd
    (2000) 1AE266
  • Samuel Chacha Mwita Vs Kenya Medical Research Institute
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 and the Employment Act 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (6)

#

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, "Jared Mangera & 11 others v Professional Clean Care Limited [2018] KEELRC 971 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1592 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/971/eng@2018-10-01

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