Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNairobi Appeal No. E037 OF 2023· [2025] KEELRC 12 (KLR)

Nduva v Halar Industries Limited (Appeal E037 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 12 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 January 2025
JKJemimah Keli
4,319 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that a fixed-term contract simply ends on its expiry date — working two days short of that date isn't unfair termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of Hon. E.M. Kagoni (PM) delivered on 27th February 2023 in Milimani MCELRC E854 of 2021 dismissing his employment claim, appealed to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi. He had claimed to have been employed as a casual labourer from April 2010, converted to permanent status, and casually terminated on 28th June 2019 without notice or reason, seeking compensation for wrongful termination. The respondent maintained he was engaged on successive three-month fixed-term contracts, the last expiring 30th June 2019, with full salary and benefits paid. The appeal was canvassed by written submissions. Framing four issues, the court on first appeal re-evaluated the evidence. It found both parties agreed the appellant initially worked as a casual but thereafter signed three-month fixed-term contracts; his own pleadings admitted this, and challenges to the validity of the contracts were unpleadable on appeal, parties being bound by their pleadings. He was therefore not a casual employee as statutorily defined and section 37 on conversion was inapplicable. On termination, the court held that stoppage of work two days before the expiry of the fixed term, with full salary and benefits paid, could not amount to unfair termination, as fixed-term contracts end by effluxion of time with no obligation to give notice of expiry, applying the De la Salle Christian Brothers decision. The appeal was dismissed and, tempering justice with mercy in an employment claim, each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellant was a casual employee or on a fixed-term contract

Holding

The appellant was on a fixed-term contract, not casual employment, so section 37 of the Employment Act on conversion was inapplicable.

Reasoning

The appellant's own pleadings and witness statement admitted three-month contracts. The statutory definition of a casual employee (paid at day's end, engaged not longer than twenty-four hours at a time) did not fit. Challenges to contract validity were not pleaded and parties are bound by their pleadings.

p. 5
02

Whether the termination of the appellant's employment was lawful and fair

Holding

Stoppage of work two days before expiry of a fixed-term contract, with full salary and benefits paid, was not unfair termination.

Reasoning

The contract of 1st April 2019 was for three months expiring 30th June 2019. Work stopped on 28th June 2019 and the appellant admitted payment for the full contract period. A fixed-term contract expires by effluxion of time without notice, and sections 35(1), 43 and 45 are complied with in such circumstances.

p. 6
03

Whether the appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

No reliefs were available as the claim was properly dismissed at trial.

Reasoning

Since the appellant was on a fixed-term contract that ended by effluxion of time with all dues paid, no claim for wrongful or unfair termination could be maintained, and the trial court's dismissal of the claim with costs was sound.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A fixed-term contract terminates by effluxion of time and no notice of expiry or non-renewal is required; sections 35(1), 43 and 45 of the Employment Act are complied with where a fixed-term contract ends on its expiry date.
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings; a party cannot raise a new challenge on appeal that was not pleaded at trial.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 2 (definition of casual employee)
  • Employment Actsection 37
  • Employment Actsections 9(3) and 4
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)
  • Employment Actsection 43
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 10

Cases cited (9)

  • Abok James Odera T/A A.J Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates
    [2013] KECA 208 (KLR)
  • Nancy Samba Matunda & James Chiro Tunje v Lightex Limited
    (2017) eKLR
  • Wachie Richard Sindani & 10 others v Builders Depot Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Krystalline Salt Limited v Kwekwe Mwakele & 67 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Transparency International Kenya vs Teresa Carlo Omondi
    Civil Appeal 81 of 2018
  • Samuel Chacha Mwita v Medical Research Institute
    (2015) eKLR / (2014) eKLR
  • Emmanuel Musembi Nthambi v Tarmal Wire Products Ltd
    (2019) eKLR
  • Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa & Another vs Ruth Gathoni Ngotho
    (2017) eKLR
  • The Registered Trustees De la Salle Christian Brothers T/A St. Mary's Boys Secondary School vs Julius D. M. Baini
    (2017) eKLR
On appeal from
Milimani Commercial Courts (Magistrates' Court, MCELRC)
MCELRC E854 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's court in an employment claim

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nduva v Halar Industries Limited (Appeal E037 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 12 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Appeal No. E037 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/12/eng@2025-01-14

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