Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2021] KEELRC 1270 (KLR)

Stanley Mutua Mulatya & 5 others v Vectorcon Pest Control & Supplies Ltd [2021] KEELRC 1270 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 July 2021
JRJames Rika
1,239 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court ruled that when workers' contracts are tied to a client contract, that contract's end lawfully ends the jobs—no compensation is owed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Six Claimants, employed by the Respondent as Caretaker Service Operators (in practice, cleaners) assigned to the Aga Khan Academy, sued for 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, severance pay at 15 days' salary per complete year of service, and annual leave pay, contending their contracts were unfairly terminated on 31st August 2016 when the Respondent's contract with the Academy lapsed. The Respondent conceded the employment but asserted the contracts were specifically tied to the head contract with the Academy, which issued a two-month termination notice in July 2016; the Claimants' contracts accordingly lapsed and there was no redundancy. The 5th Claimant testified for all Claimants and conceded under cross-examination that they had signed contracts providing that they would remain in force only as long as the Aga Khan Academy contract subsisted. The Respondent's Financial Controller confirmed the same, while the Academy's Head of Operations confirmed the head contract was terminated for substandard performance. The Court found that the contracts expressly provided for periodic extension while the head contract subsisted, that similar past contracts with the Kenya Ports Authority carried the same terms, and that upon termination of the head contract the contract-period clause was triggered. There was no redundancy and no unfair or wrongful termination; the Claimants could not hold term-indefinite contracts, and it was irrelevant that they were not at fault. The Claim was declined in its entirety with no order on the costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the Claimants' contracts of employment

Holding

The contracts were conditional on the subsistence of the head contract between the Respondent and Aga Khan Academy and lapsed when it terminated

Reasoning

The written contracts expressly provided that they would remain in force only as long as the head contract with Aga Khan Academy subsisted, with extension letters drafted after every six months. The Claimants' testimonies confirmed they signed such contracts, and similar past contracts with the Kenya Ports Authority carried the same renewal and termination terms. The Claimants therefore could not hold term-indefinite contracts.

p. 3
02

Whether termination amounted to unfair termination and redundancy

Holding

There was no unfair termination or redundancy; the contracts expired in accordance with the agreed condition

Reasoning

The Aga Khan Academy witness confirmed termination of the head contract; the reasons for that termination were irrelevant to the Claimants' cause. Once the head contract ended, the contract-period clause in the Claimants' contracts was triggered. It was irrelevant that the Claimants were not at fault, because the agreed determining occurrence had taken place and the Respondent issued notices accordingly.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties agree that the life of a contract of employment depends on the subsistence of a head contract, the lapse of the head contract brings the employment contract to an end by its own terms, without unfair termination or redundancy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Labour Institutions Act (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stanley Mutua Mulatya & 5 others v Vectorcon Pest Control & Supplies Ltd [2021] KEELRC 1270 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1270/eng@2021-07-07

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