Nancy Njeri Muturi v Kabansora Millers Limited [2019] KEELRC 2057 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed the cleaner was genuinely employed by the company, but dismissed her claim because she couldn't prove she was actually dismissed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the employer - direct employment or outsourced labour
The Claimant was indisputably an employee of the Respondent; the outsourcing defence failed for want of evidence
The Claimant produced payment sheets in the nature of a muster roll under the Respondent's name, and the WIBA form for her workplace injury named the Respondent as employer. The Respondent's witness admitted finding her working as a cleaner and assigning her duties, yet claimed she was a Bito Limited employee hired in August 2014. The court found it incoherent that an employee of Bito Limited would be directly answerable to a supervisor of the Respondent.
Whether the Claimant proved unlawful termination
The Claimant failed to prove the termination and her averred reasons for it
Although the court found an employment relationship existed, the Claimant's own testimony did not clearly establish how she was dismissed. She said she was told to leave by supervisors Omwoyo and Mutinda when she could not pack flour owing to her finger injury, while the Respondent's witness said she declined reassignment to packaging. Her pleading that she was dismissed so a male employee could replace her was not proved. The burden of proving termination having not been discharged, the claim failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer alleges that a claimant is an outsourced employee of a third party, the employer must adduce evidence of that outsourcing; absent such evidence, the claimant is an employee of the party for whom she worked, as confirmed by the WIBA form naming the employer
- If a claimant failed to obey a lawful command of the respondent's supervisor, that conduct itself proves she was employed by the respondent, not the third party
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the suit
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs in the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment (first-instance employment and labour relations claim)
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.
- Mutua v St. Mary’s Mission Hospital (Cause E340 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3089 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3089 (KLR)29 Nov 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nancy Njeri Muturi v Kabansora Millers Limited [2019] KEELRC 2057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2057/eng@2019-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.