Justus Orina Mariita v Accurate Steel Mills Limited [2022] KEELRC 692 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that 'casual' workers engaged beyond one month become protected employees, and employers must follow redundancy procedures before termination.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was a casual or permanent employee
The successive renewable contracts each exceeded one month, so the casual engagement converted into a contract of service under Sections 37(1)(a) and 35(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Section 2 of the Employment Act defines a casual employee as one engaged for no longer than 24 hours at a time. Under Section 37, continuous work beyond one month converts the engagement into a service contract. The appointment letters produced each ran beyond a month, and the claimant worked for over three years, so the employment was protected from unfair termination under Section 45.
Whether the termination was unlawful or unfair
The termination was unfair as the mandatory Section 40 redundancy procedure was not followed
The claimant was terminated for shortage of work, which is in substance a redundancy. Section 40 prescribes mandatory steps: one month's notice of intended redundancy, meaningful consultation on the criteria, and payment of terminal dues. None were followed, and there was no evidence of any recall communication, so judgment entered for the claimant.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the remedies prayed for
Partially: notice pay, service gratuity and 3 months' compensation awarded; leave claims declined for failure of proof
The court awarded one month's notice pay computed from the contracts on record and service gratuity at 15 days per year for three years. For fairness, compensation of three months' salary was awarded given about three years of service and no contribution to the termination. Leave claims failed as unproven special damages.
Legal principles established
#- A casual employee engaged for a period exceeding one month is converted into a contract of service under Section 37 of the Employment Act
- Failure to adhere to the mandatory redundancy procedure under Section 40(1)(a-g) of the Employment Act renders a termination unlawful
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved
Court orders
#- 1.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.11,280/= awarded
- 2.Service gratuity at 15 days for 3 years of Kshs.16,920/= awarded
- 3.Compensation for unfair termination of 3 months' salary equivalent, Kshs.33,840/= awarded
- 4.Total award of Kshs.62,040/= with interest at court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 5.Claimant awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007 (first-instance memorandum of claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Krystalline Salt Limited (Gongoni) v Paul Nyandiko Nyakioga[2026] KEELRC 2483 (KLR)21 Sept 2026applied
- H Young & Co. (E.A) Ltd v Kobong (Appeal E10 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 514 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 514 (KLR)24 Feb 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Justus Orina Mariita v Accurate Steel Mills Limited [2022] KEELRC 692 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 1045 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/692/eng@2022-02-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.