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. 114 of 2017 (consolidated with Causes Nos. 104–113 and 115–117 of 2017)· [2019] KEELRC 681 (KLR)

Wario Haro & 13 others v Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction Co. Limited [2019] KEELRC 681 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 October 2019
NMNzioki wa Makau
3,644 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that workers hired for a specific construction project cannot claim unfair dismissal when their jobs end with the project.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Twelve claimants (Causes Nos. 104–117 of 2017, consolidated with Cause No. 114 of 2017 as the lead file) sued China Wu Yi Limited for wrongful, unprocedural and unfair termination and unpaid terminal benefits arising from their employment as guards, labourers, general workers and a tipper driver on the Marsabit–Turbi Road construction project. Each sought a declaration that the termination was unlawful, plus notice pay, gratuity, maximum compensation for unfair termination, underpayment, annual leave, house allowance and Sunday overtime, with totals ranging from about Kshs. 242,737 to Kshs. 1,995,664. They alleged contravention of Sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act and breach of a 2012 collective bargaining agreement brokered by their union. The Respondent denied the claims, asserting that the claimants were engaged for the duration of the KeNHA contract (initially to April 2014, extended to April 2015), that separations were mutually agreed with lawful dues paid, and that it complied with the Employment Act. Only the lead claimant testified; the Respondent relied on its affidavit of evidence and filed no submissions. The court held that the claimants could not have anticipated employment beyond the life of the project, none worked during the defects liability period, and the underpayment claims failed for want of pay slips. It found the reason for termination valid under Sections 43 and 45, the contracts having ended on effluxion of time and completion of the project. All claims were dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination upon completion of the road construction project was unfair

Holding

The termination was not unfair; the reason was valid as the contracts came to an end on effluxion of time and completion of the project

Reasoning

The Respondent's KeNHA contract ran from 5 April 2011 and was extended to April 2015, with a defects liability period to April 2017. The court held that no Claimant demonstrated work during the defects liability period, and none could anticipate work beyond the life of the project. The reason for termination was therefore valid and fair under Sections 43 and 45, and the contract ended on effluxion of time.

p. 4
02

Whether the Claimants proved underpayment

Holding

The underpayment claims failed for want of proof

Reasoning

The Claimants alleged wages below the statutory minimum but produced no pay slips or other documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged shortfalls. The burden of proof lay on them, and the claim collapsed for lack of evidence.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, termination is unfair if the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and fair procedure
  • Employment tied to a fixed-term project terminates lawfully on effluxion of time or completion of the project, with no expectation of indefinite employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The consolidated claims are dismissed in their entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 41, 43, 44, 45(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (claims for unfair termination and terminal benefits)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Wario Haro & 13 others v Jiangxi Zhongmei Engineering Construction Co. Limited [2019] KEELRC 681 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 114 of 2017 (consolidated with Causes Nos. 104–113 and 115–117 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/681/eng@2019-10-14

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