Njuguna v Geosat Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 541 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 898 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a worker was an independent contractor, not an employee, so he lost termination protections but still recovered unpaid salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was an employee or an independent contractor
The Claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee of the Respondent
Neither party produced any documents evidencing the relationship. The Claimant held the certificate of proficiency essential to the Respondent's business registration, determined his own working schedule, was not supervised, and was paid Kshs 40,000 monthly in cash without statutory deductions, no payslips or PAYE. The court applied the tests in Omusamia v Upperhill Springs Restaurant and Mungai v Avion Limited and found the arrangement was a contract for services.
Recovery of unpaid salary despite the dismissal of the employment claim
The Claimant was awarded Kshs 120,000 for three months' unpaid salary, which the Respondent's witness admitted was not paid
RW1 admitted under cross-examination that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant for three months due to low business. Even though the employment claim failed, the court ordered payment of the admitted debt with interest from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
Legal principles established
#- Where a claimant provides prima facie evidence tending to establish an employment relationship, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to prove the relationship was one of independent contract (Section 109, Evidence Act)
- In determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the court examines the totality of the relationship, applying tests such as the control test, the four-fold test and the integration test according to the circumstances of each case
- A worker whose professional certificate is essential to the respondent's business, who is paid without statutory deductions and who controls his own working schedule may be an independent contractor
Court orders
#- 1.The claim against the Respondent is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs 120,000/- being three months' unpaid salary plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit until full payment
- 3.Each party to pay their respective costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied); Respondent challenged jurisdiction on the ground that the Claimant was not an employee
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna v Geosat Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 541 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 898 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 10th April 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/898/eng@2024-04-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.