Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 1065 of 2015· [2020] KEELRC 1198 (KLR)

Denis Ngura Murigi v Epco Builders Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 1198 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 April 2020
1,828 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a casual welder who worked continuously for four years was a permanent employee, entitling him to compensation for unfair redundancy.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued on 19/06/2015 for salary arrears arising from alleged underpayment between 8/04/2011 and 2/04/2015, plus accrued leave, gratuity, salary in lieu of notice, weekly rest days and public holidays, and costs, after his services ended on 2/04/2015 on account of redundancy. The respondent denied any employment relationship and prayed for dismissal with costs. At the hearing the claimant testified that he was employed as a welder at daily wages paid weekly, worked continuously for about four years without leave or off days, and was terminated without prior redundancy notice. The respondent's HR Manager confirmed the claimant had been engaged as a casual welder but produced no employment records, admitted no hearing was accorded, and eventually conceded that the termination notification cited minimum work at the workshop. The court framed three issues: conversion of casual employment to permanent employment, fairness of the termination, and entitlement to reliefs. Holding that the claimant worked continuously for about four years, the court found his casual employment had converted to permanent employment under section 37(1) of the Employment Act. The redundancy was held unfair because the mandatory one month notice under section 40 was not served. Judgment was entered for Kshs. 56,472 (one month's notice of Kshs. 14,118 and compensation of Kshs. 42,354 under section 49, assessed at the minimum wage in Legal Notice No. 197 of 2013), with costs and interest at court rates. The leave, gratuity, rest days/public holidays and underpayment claims were dismissed for want of particulars and proof.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether casual employment converted to permanent employment

Holding

Having worked continuously for about 4 years, the claimant's casual employment converted to permanent employment as if he had not started as a casual employee.

Reasoning

The claimant testified he worked continuously from 8/04/2011 to 2/04/2015. The respondent, despite denying the employment relationship, produced no employment records to rebut this evidence and no records to prove habitual absenteeism. On a balance of probability the continuous service was proved, triggering the statutory deeming provision in section 37(1) of the Employment Act.

p. 2
02

Whether the termination on account of redundancy was unfair

Holding

The redundancy was procedurally defective and amounted to unfair termination because no one month notice was served as required by section 40 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

Section 40 mandates, in mandatory terms, at least one month written notice to the employee or trade union and the area labour officer before termination on account of redundancy. The respondent acknowledged the termination was on account of redundancy but produced no copy of any notice as an exhibit. The termination therefore fell foul of section 45 of the Act.

p. 2
03

Entitlement to the reliefs sought

Holding

Only one month's salary in lieu of notice and three months' salary as compensation were awarded, assessed on the minimum wage; all other heads of claim failed for want of particulars and proof.

Reasoning

Compensation was anchored on section 49 of the Employment Act and computed at the minimum wage of Kshs. 470.60 per day under Legal Notice No. 197 of 1st May 2013 because the claimant did not demonstrate where a welder fell in the job grading. The leave, gratuity, off days, public holidays and underpayment claims all failed for lack of particulars, evidence and contractual or legal basis.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a casual employee works continuously for over one month, the employment is deemed to convert to a permanent contract of service under section 37(1) of the Employment Act.
  • Redundancy without the mandatory one month written notice to the employee and the area labour officer under section 40 of the Employment Act is an unfair termination under section 45.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the claimant in the sum of Kshs. 56,472 comprising Kshs. 14,118 being one month's salary in lieu of notice and Kshs. 42,354 being compensation for unfair termination
  2. 2.The sum awarded is less statutory deductions but in addition to costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 2
  • Employment Actsection 35
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(a)
  • Employment Actsection 37
  • Employment Actsection 37(1)
  • Employment Actsection 40
  • Employment Actsection 40(1)(f)
  • Employment Actsection 40(c)
  • Employment Actsection 44(4)(g)
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 47(5)
  • Employment Actsection 49
  • Legal Notice No. 197 of 2013 (Wage Order)minimum wage of Kshs. 470.60 per day

Cases cited (2)

  • Josephant Njuguna V High Rise Self Group
    [2014] eKLR
  • Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) V Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Denis Ngura Murigi v Epco Builders Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 1198 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 1065 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1198/eng@2020-04-29

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