Gikama & 15 others v County Government of Laikipia & 2 others (Cause 62 & 46-71 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2023] KEELRC 2313 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed 17 casual workers' claims against Laikipia County because they could not prove years of continuous service beyond short three-month contracts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants' casual employment converted to permanent and pensionable terms under section 37 of the Employment Act
No - the claimants failed to prove continuous service beyond isolated three-month contracts; only a few contracts were produced and none showed engagement beyond three months
The court found the claimants produced only isolated three-month contract letters, with no documents showing engagement beyond the stated periods. Despite claiming up to 12 years of service, they failed to substantiate this. The claimant bears the onus of proving length of service, and even where records lie with the employer, the claimants should have sought their production. The claim fell below the evidentiary threshold.
Whether claimants were entitled to house allowance and leave
No - the claimants signed contracts indicating the payable amounts and cannot renege to claim allowances; consolidated pay covered statutory allowances under section 31(2) of the Employment Act
The short-term contracts displayed the amounts payable and the claimants signed in agreement. Having accepted consolidated pay, they could not later claim house allowances. As for leave, intermittent engagements of less than three months did not meet section 28's requirement of continuous service exceeding a year.
Whether reinstatement or conversion to permanent terms could be ordered
No - reinstatement is time-barred under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act and no employment relationship was proved as at the date of suit
The court found that from 2017 to the date of judgment, more than three years had elapsed, rendering reinstatement untenable under section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act. Further, since the claimants did not prove employment with the respondent, there was no basis for reinstatement or conversion of terms.
Legal principles established
#- The claimant bears the onus of proving the length of employment claimed, including producing records evidencing continuous engagement beyond the pleaded short contracts
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed with no order of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gikama & 15 others v County Government of Laikipia & 2 others (Cause 62 & 46-71 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2023] KEELRC 2313 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). ELRC Cause Number 62 of 2016 (lead file; 16 consolidated causes). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2313/eng@2023-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.