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 855 of 2017· [2023] KEELRC 10 (KLR)

Mlandi & 9 others v Dimamu Agencies Limited (Cause 855 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 10 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 January 2023
3,467 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that long-serving 'casual' workers are legally permanent employees, and firing them without notice or a hearing is unfair and compensable.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Ten Claimants, formerly loaders and general labourers of the Respondent, sued for unfair termination and terminal dues, claiming overtime, untaken leave, house allowance, service pay/gratuity and unpaid salary. They gave varying commencement dates between 2011 and 2015 and said they were summarily told to pack and leave between July 2015 and August 2016 without termination letters or hearings. The Respondent denied the claims, asserting the Claimants were casuals engaged on a need-by-need basis, paid daily rates, and that all dues were settled. The Court framed three issues: employment status, fairness of termination, and remedies. On the first, it applied sections 2 and 37 of the Employment Act and held that continuous service exceeding one month converts casual engagement into term employment by operation of law. Because the Respondent produced no employment records despite its statutory duty under section 75, the Court adopted the Claimants' pleaded service periods. It found the Claimants were term employees subject to sections 35 and 45. On termination, the Court applied sections 41 and 45 and found no valid reasons were given and no hearing afforded; the terminations were declared substantively and procedurally unfair. On remedies, the Court awarded each Claimant one month's notice pay and service pay (absent proof of NSSF remittance), plus compensatory damages of one to five months' salary depending on length of service. Overtime, leave and house allowance claims were declined as unproved special damages; three days' unpaid salary was awarded to the 7th Claimant. The claim thus succeeded in part. Costs were awarded to the Claimants with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the Claimants' employment (casual vs term)

Holding

The Claimants were term employees, not casuals, having worked continuously for more than one month.

Reasoning

Section 2 of the Employment Act defines a casual employee as one paid at the end of each day and not engaged for longer than 24 hours. Section 37(1)(a) converts casual employment where the employee works a period amounting to not less than one month. The Respondent pleaded employment spanning years but produced no employment records; under section 75 the duty to keep records lies with the employer. The Court therefore adopted the Claimants' pleaded dates of service and found continuous service exceeding one month, converting their engagements to term contracts subject to sections 35 and 45.

p. 6
02

Whether the terminations were unfair

Holding

The terminations were both substantively and procedurally unfair.

Reasoning

Section 45(1) prohibits unfair termination and section 45(2) requires a valid reason. Section 41 requires the employer to explain reasons to the employee in a language understood and allow a fellow employee or shop floor representative. The Claimants were simply told to pack and leave, with no termination letters, no show-cause letters, and no disciplinary hearing. Prior written warnings did not cure the absence of an opportunity to defend themselves. The Respondent failed the substantive justification and procedural fairness tests.

p. 7
03

Remedies

Holding

Notice pay and service pay awarded; damages for unfair dismissal awarded at 1 to 5 months' salary; overtime, leave and house allowance claims declined for want of proof.

Reasoning

Having found unfair termination, the Court awarded each Claimant one month's salary in lieu of notice, service pay (as there were no NSSF records proving remittance), and compensatory damages calibrated to length of service (4-5 months for longer-serving Claimants, 1-2 months for shorter service). Overtime, untaken leave and house allowance were treated as specific/special damages requiring strict proof, which the Claimants did not discharge. Unpaid salary for 3 days was awarded to the 7th Claimant.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a casual employee works continuously for a period equivalent to not less than one month, the employment converts by operation of law to a term contract under section 37 of the Employment Act.
  • The employer bears the responsibility to keep employment records under section 75 of the Employment Act; in the absence of records, the Court will accept the employee's evidence as to the period worked.
  • Termination must satisfy both substantive and procedural fairness - a valid reason and an opportunity to be heard under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaratory finding that the termination of the respective Claimants was both unlawful and procedurally unfair
  2. 2.Award of one month salary in lieu of notice to each Claimant
  3. 3.Award of service pay to the respective Claimants as tabulated
  4. 4.Award of damages for wrongful dismissal of 1 to 5 months' salary equivalent per Claimant, as tabulated
  5. 5.Award of 3 days' unpaid salary to the 7th Claimant (Kshs 1,230/-)
  6. 6.Costs awarded to the Claimants
  7. 7.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till full payment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 2
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(c) and 35(2)-(6)
  • Employment Actsection 37(1)(a)
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 45(1) and (2)
  • Employment Actsection 75
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1B

Cases cited (3)

  • Francis Ndirangu Wachira vs Betty Wairimu Maina
    Cause No 253 of 2017
  • Silas Mutwiri v Hagai Muiti Chargo Handling Services Limited
    (2013) eKLR
  • Daniel Kiplagat Kipkeibut vs SMEP Deposit taking Microfinance
    2016 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (court not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mlandi & 9 others v Dimamu Agencies Limited (Cause 855 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 10 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 855 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/10/eng@2023-01-12

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