Amisi v Karsan (Cause 1936 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 159 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A domestic worker lost her unfair termination claim because she could not prove an employment relationship even existed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent
No employment relationship was established; the Claimant was a mama nguo (laundry lady) engaged casually, not an employee.
The Claimant pleaded employment from 4th August 2014 but could not recall the date or nature of her work. She worked only a few hours, 3-5 days a week, washing clothes at Kshs. 300 daily. Her claimed monthly income of Kshs. 3,800 was inconsistent with her stated expenditure of about Kshs. 5,000, suggesting supplemental income. She failed to produce circumstantial evidence such as messages or witnesses to prove an oral contract. Both parties' evidence showed she was a laundry lady.
Burden of proof in oral contract of employment claims
It was the Claimant's obligation to establish the oral contract; she failed to persuade the Court to presume an employment relationship and shift the burden to the Respondent.
Oral contracts are recognized under the Employment Act but are harder to prove. Domestic workers' claims tend to be word against word. The Claimant had to supply circumstantial evidence - text messages, photographs, or witnesses who saw her at work. She was unclear on dates and the scope of her work, so the Court declined to invoke the presumption of an employment relationship.
Whether termination was unfair and whether statutory benefits were due
Not reached on the merits - both questions depended on the prior finding that no employment relationship existed.
The issues of unfair termination and statutory benefits were conditional on the establishment of an employment relationship. Having found the Claimant was not an employee but a casual laundry worker who sought assistance from the Karsans, the Court found the Respondent was not liable under contract or law for termination or statutory dues.
Legal principles established
#- Determination of the existence of an employment relationship is primarily based on the facts relating to the provision of work and remuneration - primacy of facts per ILO Recommendation No. 198.
- A domestic worker must establish an employment relationship to benefit from the protection of the law; courts cannot presume an oral contract of domestic employment without basic evidence.
- Under ILO Recommendation No. 198, remuneration from the work should be the sole or main source of revenue for the worker in determining an employment relationship.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is dismissed.
- 2.No order on the costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amisi v Karsan (Cause 1936 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/159/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.