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· [2018] KEELRC 1190 (KLR)

Francis Mbugua Muthiga v Echuka Farm Limited [2018] KEELRC 1190 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 April 2018
3,598 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employers who skip written contracts and proper redundancy procedures pay heavily in court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed from January 2006 as Farm Manager at the respondent's Ndaragwa farm in Laikipia at a monthly salary of Kshs.18,000 without a written contract, claimed unpaid salary of Kshs.506,000, statutory contributions, severance pay, notice pay, leave, damages and follow-up expenses after the respondent's director allegedly sold the farm and retrenched all staff on 31st July 2009 without notice, reasons or hearing. The respondent denied an employment relationship, asserting the claimant was only a licensee over the farm, and alleged the claimant had appropriated the farm records. The court identified three issues: whether there was unfair and wrongful termination, whether there was redundancy, and the available remedies. It held that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before the court, that the employer's failure to issue and produce written contracts and work records under sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment Act shifted the burden to the respondent, and found the claimant was an employee. The sale of the farm and resulting layoff amounted to redundancy, but the respondent failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of sections 40 and 45, rendering the termination unfair. Judgment was entered for the claimant with declarations of employment and unfair termination, and awards of compensation (Kshs.54,000), severance pay (Kshs.36,000), service pay (Kshs.36,000), notice pay (Kshs.18,000), unpaid leave (Kshs.63,000) and unpaid salaries (Kshs.506,000), plus costs. Claims for statutory remittances and unproved special damages were declined.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was an employee or a licensee

Holding

The claimant was an employee of the respondent; the alleged licensee agreement was never produced and the burden shifted to the respondent to disprove the employment relationship, which it failed to discharge.

Reasoning

The claimant filed records of salary payments including to himself and called a co-employee as witness. The respondent produced no work records, no written licensee agreement, and no records for the other employees. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment Act place a mandatory duty on employers to issue written contracts and keep records; under section 10(7), failure to produce them shifts the burden to the employer. The Evidence Act does not apply to this court, so the claimant's evidence was believed.

p. 3
02

Whether the termination amounted to a redundancy

Holding

Yes - the sale of the farm and resulting layoff was redundancy under section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007.

Reasoning

The respondent sold the farm due to revenue losses and all employees parted ways. Redundancy is defined as loss of employment by involuntary means through no fault of the employee, at the initiative of the employer, where the services are superfluous. The loss of employment was involuntary, through no fault of the claimant, and driven by the employer's business circumstances.

p. 4
03

Whether the termination through redundancy was unfair

Holding

Yes - the respondent failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.

Reasoning

Following Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union, an employer must prove the reasons for termination, their validity, and compliance with the procedural requirements of section 40, including notices of termination. The claimant was not given notice, reasons or hearing and was not paid. The respondent failed to demonstrate procedural compliance or substantive justice, rendering the termination unfair.

p. 4
04

What remedies are available

Holding

Severance pay, compensation under section 49, service pay, notice pay, unpaid leave and outstanding salary were awarded; damages, statutory remittances and unproved special damages were declined.

Reasoning

Severance pay is due at not less than 15 days' pay per completed year under section 40(1)(g). Compensation for unfair termination lies under section 49, awarded at 3 months' salary. Unpaid NSSF/NHIF contributions belong to the statutory bodies, so the court awarded service pay under section 35 instead. Notice pay for an employee without a written contract is one month's salary. Leave was confirmed as claimed, and outstanding salary was unchallenged.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employer fails to issue written particulars of employment and fails to produce them in proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment is on the employer and the employee's word must be believed.
  • Sale of a business leading to layoff of employees constitutes redundancy, and termination on account of redundancy must comply with sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  • The Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the claimant was an employee of the respondent
  2. 2.A declaration that the claimant was unfairly and wrongfully terminated in his employment through redundancy
  3. 3.Compensation at Kshs.54,000.00
  4. 4.Severance pay Kshs.36,000.00
  5. 5.Service pay Kshs.36,000.00
  6. 6.Notice pay Kshs.18,000.00
  7. 7.Unpaid leave Kshs.63,000.00
  8. 8.Unpaid salaries Kshs.506,000.00
  9. 9.Costs of the suit to the claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 2
  • Employment Act, 2007sections 8, 9 (including 9(4)), 10 (including 10(6) and 10(7)), 35, 40 (including 40(1)(g)), 43(1) and 43(2), 45(1) and 45(2), 47(5), 49
  • Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenyasections 107 and 109
  • Labour Relations Actsection 2 (as referred to in Kenya Airways case)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mary Mutanu Mwendwa versus Ayuda Ninos De Africa-Kenya (Anidan K)
    [2013] eKLR
  • Thomas De La Rue versus David Opondo
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kennedy Ouru Okise versus James Finley (K) Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd versus Pipeplastic (K) Ltd
    [2002] 2 EA
  • Samwel Shilumba Kwayumba versus Tushar Shar
    Cause No.484 of 2013
  • Kenya Airways Limited versus Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (not challenged: 'Jurisdiction of this court is not challenged.')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Mbugua Muthiga v Echuka Farm Limited [2018] KEELRC 1190 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1190/eng@2018-04-20

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