Nyakina v Style Industries Limited (Cause 2033 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1524 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that when a fixed term contract simply expires, the employee cannot claim unfair dismissal, though they must still get a certificate of service.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the written contract dated 3rd April 2017 was admissible and valid despite not being spoken to by a witness
The contract was properly on record and valid; the Claimant never raised admissibility at the appropriate time, and Rule 21 of the ELRC Procedure Rules permits the Court to determine suits on documents and submissions
Section 35(1)(b) of the Evidence Act dispenses with the requirement of calling the maker in certain circumstances. The Claimant did not object to admissibility at the hearing, did not seek cross-examination, and did not apply for expunction of the document. Rule 21 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 empowers the Court to determine suits on pleadings, affidavits, documents and submissions. The contract was therefore admitted and found valid.
Whether the Claimant signed the contract dated 3rd April 2017
The Court found that the Claimant did sign the contract, as the signature matched the signature on her witness statement
Although the Claimant denied signing the contract in cross-examination, she confirmed that her name was her signature. Both documents bore the name 'Gladys' on the signature page and the signatures appeared identical to the naked eye. The Claimant did not allege forgery. The Court therefore concluded her attempt to disown the signature fell through.
Whether the Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract or permanently
The Claimant was employed on successive three months' fixed term contracts; there was no evidence of conversion to permanent employment and Section 37 of the Employment Act was inapplicable
The evidence showed periodic three months' contracts. Section 37 addresses conversion of casual employment to term contract, but the Claimant was not a casual employee and did not plead permanency. The documents on record contradicted her claim that she signed only one contract in February 2016.
Whether the employment was terminated unfairly or lapsed by effluxion of time
The contract lapsed by effluxion of time; the letter headed 'Termination of Employment contract' did not constitute an unfair termination
Relying on authority that fixed term contracts carry no expectations beyond expiry, the Court held that the letter's express basis was effluxion of time. The Claimant was paid notice pay, annual leave and arrears, and led no evidence of acrimony or performance issues. She also did not plead legitimate expectation of renewal.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed term contracts carry no rights, obligations or expectations of renewal beyond the date of expiry, and claims for wrongful termination cannot be maintained where the contract ended by effluxion of time
- A party who does not object to a document at the appropriate stage, or apply for its expunction, cannot later challenge its admissibility
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the suit save for the prayer for certificate of service
- 2.The Respondent directed to issue the certificate of service within 30 days of the date of judgment
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court); Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Rule 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyakina v Style Industries Limited (Cause 2033 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1524 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1524/eng@2022-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.