Villa Sandra Company Limited v Matete (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E115 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 859 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its appeal and must pay a former worker over Kshs. 300,000 after the court found he was a permanent employee, not a casual worker.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of an employment relationship between the parties
The respondent proved on a balance of probabilities an oral contract of employment as cleaner/caretaker/driver from 2014 to 2021 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 12,000, corroborated by an M-PESA statement and by the appellant's own witness; the casual-employment characterisation failed and the engagement converted to a term contract under section 37 of the Employment Act.
The claimant pleaded the employment relationship with precision, produced an M-PESA statement showing a Kshs. 12,000 payment from a director, and his evidence was corroborated by CW2 and by RW1 (the appellant's agent), who found the claimant working and confirmed he had been paid Kshs. 12,000 monthly. The appellant's defence admitted the monies received. The appellant failed to rebut this evidence, and section 47(5) of the Employment Act placed the burden of justification on it.
Whether the trial court erred in its decision on relief
The trial court's award (unpaid salary, notice pay, underpayment, unpaid leave, service pay and compensation for unlawful termination) was upheld; the appellant did not submit on the reliefs and no basis existed to disturb the award.
Guided by Mbogo v Shah, the appellate court will not interfere with an inferior court's discretion unless the decision is clearly wrong. Considering the evidence of monthly salary of Kshs. 12,000, the Minimum Wages Orders of 2017 and 2018, the claimant's replacement by an agent without reason, and that he never went on leave, the court found no basis to disturb the award. The appellant did not submit on the reliefs awarded.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless the decision is clearly wrong
- A casual employee who works for a period equivalent to not less than one month is deemed converted to a monthly contract of service under section 37 of the Employment Act
- The burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds of termination rests on the employer (section 47(5), Employment Act)
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment and Decree of the Honourable S.N Muchungi (PM) delivered at Nairobi on 8th March 2024 in Nairobi MCELRC No. E633 of 2022 is upheld
- 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 3.30 days' stay is granted
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations, Nairobi)
- Nairobi MCELRC No. E633 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the magistrates' court in employment matters
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Villa Sandra Company Limited v Matete (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E115 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/859/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.