Okello & 4 others v University of Nairobi (Civil Appeal E185 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 52 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that long-serving 'casual' cleaners were actually permanent employees and their firings were unfair, awarding them compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellants were casual employees
The finding that they were casuals was an error of law and fact; they were term employees by dint of Section 37 of the Employment Act.
The Appellants were engaged as washroom cleaners whose jobs were continuous by nature and could not be said to be on need basis. Wages payment schedules showed continuous work beyond the statutory casual period and monthly payment. Under Section 37, their contracts converted to monthly terms, so the trial court's conclusion that they were casuals was erroneous.
Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair
Yes; the termination breached Sections 43 and 41 of the Employment Act and was unfair.
Once the Appellants were found to be term employees, their termination had to satisfy the requirement of a valid reason under Section 43 and the fair-procedure dictates of Section 41. Neither standard was met, so the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair, warranting compensation and notice pay.
Remedies payable
Compensation calibrated to length of service (1-12 months) plus one month's notice pay each, using Kshs. 622 daily rate as pleaded by the Respondent.
Guided by Kenfreight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti, the court found compensation for unlawful termination and notice pay were due. Awards were tabulated using the daily rate pleaded by the Respondent and the respective service periods pleaded by the Appellants, while unproven heads of claim were rejected.
Legal principles established
#- A casual employee who works for a period equivalent to not less than one month, or whose work cannot reasonably be completed within three months, is deemed by Section 37 of the Employment Act to have a monthly contract of service.
- A first appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, bearing in mind it did not hear the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The order of dismissal of the Appellants' claim by the trial court is set aside and replaced with an award in favour of the Appellants
- 2.1st Appellant (Joshua Otieno Okello): Kshs. 179,136 as 12 months' salary in compensation and Kshs. 14,928 as one month's salary in lieu of notice (total Kshs. 194,064)
- 3.2nd Appellant (Caroline Atieno): Kshs. 74,640 as 5 months' salary in compensation and Kshs. 14,928 as one month's salary in lieu of notice (total Kshs. 89,568)
- 4.3rd Appellant (Kenneth Akoko): Kshs. 59,712 as 4 months' salary in compensation and Kshs. 14,928 as one month's salary in lieu of notice (total Kshs. 74,640)
- 5.4th Appellant (Lydiah Simiyu): Kshs. 14,928 as 1 month's salary in compensation and Kshs. 14,928 as one month's salary in lieu of notice (total Kshs. 29,856)
- 6.5th Appellant (Anthony Mbuvi): Kshs. 14,928 as 1 month's salary in compensation and Kshs. 14,928 as one month's salary in lieu of notice (total Kshs. 29,856)
- 7.The Respondent will pay the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the trial court
- On appeal from
- Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations)
- CMELRC No. 553 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations) judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okello & 4 others v University of Nairobi (Civil Appeal E185 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 52 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal from Milimani CMELRC No. 553 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/52/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.