Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELD ELRC 257 OF 2017· [2022] KEELRC 1532 (KLR)

Malenya v Unga Limited (Cause 257 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1532 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 June 2022
AJAbuodha J.N
1,298 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

#

A Kenyan court confirmed employers don't have to renew fixed-term contracts, and employees must prove unfair termination to win compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant pleaded that the respondent employed him in June 2006 as a folklift driver on a gross monthly salary of Ksh.39,971 and that in June 2017 the respondent wrongfully, orally and unlawfully terminated his services without following the procedure laid down in the Employment Act. He sought a declaration that the termination was unlawful, unprocedural and unfair, plus Ksh.2,138,746.04 as compensation for unfair termination and terminal dues. The respondent denied the claim, averring that the claimant was engaged under a one-year fixed term contract dated June 24, 2016, running from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, which lapsed by effluxion of time, with renewal being at the respondent's discretion. At trial the claimant initially denied knowledge of and signature on the contract but admitted in cross-examination that he signed it and had heard of renewal discussions. The respondent's witnesses, a Distribution Supervisor and the Human Resource Manager, produced the contract, which provided for termination upon expiry without notice, and confirmed the claimant worked the full term and was paid. The court held that under section 47(5) of the Employment Act the burden of proving unfair termination lies on the employee, found the claimant's contradictions rendered him not a witness for truth, and noted the coincidence between the contract's expiry date and the alleged oral termination. The court found no obligation on an employer to renew a fixed term contract, dismissed the claim with costs and ordered accordingly.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's employment was unfairly terminated

Holding

The claim failed; employment ended by effluxion of time of a fixed term contract, not termination, and the claimant failed to discharge his burden under section 47(5).

Reasoning

The court found material contradictions in the claimant's evidence: he initially denied knowledge of and signature on the June 24, 2016 contract but admitted in cross-examination signing it. The court also noted the coincidence between the contract expiry date and the allegation of oral termination. The respondent produced the contract showing a one-year fixed term ending June 30, 2017, with termination upon expiry without notice. The claimant failed to prove unfair termination.

p. 3
02

Whether an employer is obliged to renew a fixed term contract

Holding

No obligation exists to renew a fixed term contract upon expiry; renewal is at the employer's discretion.

Reasoning

The contract dated June 24, 2016 ran for one year from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 and provided for termination upon expiry without notice. The claimant worked the full term and was paid. Non-renewal did not amount to termination, and the claimant could not presume legitimate expectation of continuity of employment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In a claim for unfair termination of employment, the onus of proving unfair termination is on the employee while the onus of proving or justifying the reason for termination is on the employer (section 47(5), Employment Act).
  • There is no obligation on an employer to renew a fixed term contract upon its expiry.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is found without merit and is dismissed
  2. 2.The claimant to pay costs of the claim to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 47(5)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment claims (Employment Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Malenya v Unga Limited (Cause 257 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1532 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELD ELRC 257 OF 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1532/eng@2022-06-08

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