Ali Indraya Obondo & another v Kapi Limited [2020] KEELRC 885 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's Ksh.1.6 million claim because his inconsistent evidence and employer records proved he was a daily-paid casual employee, not a continuous worker.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The nature of employment relationship between the parties
- 2.Whether the claims made are due
- 3.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Nature of the employment relationship
The claimant was a casual employee engaged on availability of work, paid a daily wage at the end of each day, not in continuous employment
The claimant's pleadings and testimony gave glaringly contradictory dates of employment (2010, 2011, June 2011). The respondent's employment records under section 10(7) were unchallenged and showed work on only staggered days each month with daily payment. Applying section 2 of the Employment Act and the Court of Appeal's decision in Rashid Mazuri Ramadhani v Doshi, the court found the relationship to be casual employment, not continuous service convertible under section 37.
Whether the claimed dues (notice, overtime, off days, gratuity, annual leave, compensation) are payable
None of the claims are due; all were dismissed
Notice pay is not due to a casual employee whose engagement ends daily. The claimant admitted overtime was paid at Ksh.21 per hour, making a 6-year overtime claim dishonest. Off-day claims failed since he could not recall working 7 days a week. Gratuity requires a written contract; annual leave under sections 28 and 37 is unavailable to casuals working 6 days weekly. There being no termination of employment, no compensation for unfair termination arises under sections 41, 43 and 45.
Costs
Costs awarded to the respondent
The claim having failed in its entirety and being premised on contradictory pleadings, the ordinary rule on costs applied in favour of the successful respondent.
Legal principles established
#- A casual employee is a person paid at the end of each day and not engaged for longer than twenty-four hours at a time, per section 2 of the Employment Act
- Before converting a casual contract of service under section 37 of the Employment Act, the claimant must establish casual engagement and aggregate service of more than one month
Court orders
#- 1.The suit herein is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs to the respondent
- 3.ELRC Cause No. 212 of 2016 shall be removed and addressed separately
- 4.The consolidation of both files is lifted
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the ELRC Act (first-instance employment cause)
- Consolidated with
- Cause No. 212 of 2016
Relief refused
#Notice pay of Ksh.22,942
Notice pay is not due to a casual employee whose employment is sourced daily and ends daily
Overtime pay of Ksh.780,379.55
The claimant's own evidence was that overtime hours were paid at Ksh.21 per hour; claiming 6 years of overtime was dishonest
Off days pay of Ksh.520,253.04
The claimant could not recall working 7 days per week; claims for rest/off days lack foundation
Gratuity of Ksh.11,710
The claimant was not under a written contract of employment conferring such benefit
Annual leave of Ksh.80,297
Annual leave is not available to a casual employee allocated work for 6 days each week; sections 28 and 37 of the Employment Act do not apply
Compensation of Ksh.275,304 for unfair termination
The claimant was a casual employee engaged daily; there was no termination of employment, and the claim contradicted his own pleadings and evidence
Costs
Costs to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
What is clear to the court is that there was no continuous employment of the claimant and for every day he was at work he was paid and acknowledged payment at each end of day.
Notice pay is not due to a causal employee whose employment is sourced daily and ends daily as defined under section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Our reading of Section 37 of the Employment Act reveals that before the court can convert a contract of service thereunder, the claimant ought to establish first, that he/she has been engaged by the employer in question on a casual basis and second, he/she has worked for the said employer for a period aggregating to more than one month.
Accordingly, the suit herein is dismissed in its entirety. Costs to the respondent.
ELRC Cause No.212 of 2016 shall be removed and addressed separately.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment itself notes glaring contradictions in the claimant's pleaded and testified dates of employment
The court first analysed both consolidated claims together, then reversed itself and lifted the consolidation mid-judgment
The holding on continuous service is internally inconsistent - the passage contradicts the finding of no continuous employment
The claimant's own testimony quoted in the judgment contradicts his pleaded wage figure
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.
- Chege & 2 others (Administrators of the Estate of Chege Kirumba - Deceased) v Wakigo & 2 others (Civil Application 22 of 2020) [2026] KECA 233 (KLR)[2026] KECA 233 (KLR)13 Feb 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ali Indraya Obondo & another v Kapi Limited [2020] KEELRC 885 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 213 of 2016 (Consolidated with Cause No. 212 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/885/eng@2020-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.