Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Jiinuee Group of Companies (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1180 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a Kshs 1 million employment claim because two chama field officers could not prove they were employees, not just members.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an employment relationship existed between the grievants and the respondent
- 2.Whether the grievants were unfairly (verbally) terminated from employment
- 3.Whether the claims and reliefs sought (notice pay, service pay, annual leave, underpayments, certificate of service, costs) are justified
Key legal issues
#Existence of an employment relationship between the grievants and the respondent
The claimant failed to prove employment; the grievants were members of their chamas working for those chamas, not employees of the respondent
The grievants alleged verbal employment but pleaded no particulars: no officer who engaged them, no job description, no particulars of the alleged verbal termination. Their work involved collecting contributions from chama members, and they received allowances, not salaries, as members themselves. The court found they were members working for their respective chamas rather than employees of the umbrella respondent.
Whether the grievants were unfairly terminated
The claim of unfair verbal termination did not arise absent an employment relationship, and no evidence of termination circumstances was offered
Since no employment relationship was established, the question of unfair verbal termination could not arise. Further, the grievants never testified to offer evidence of the circumstances of the alleged termination, compounding the failure of proof on this limb of the claim.
Whether the reliefs sought were justified
The claims and reliefs were not justified and the suit was dismissed with each party bearing own costs
Having found no employment relationship and no unfair termination, the ancillary claims for notice, service pay, annual leave, underpayments and a certificate of service necessarily failed. The court noted the parties appear to continue in relationship in the chama enterprise and so made no order as to costs against either side.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging verbal employment must plead and prove the particulars of that verbal employment, including who engaged the employee, the job particulars, and the circumstances of the alleged verbal termination
- Without an employment relationship, a claim of unfair termination does not arise
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to the Machakos Court Sub Registry, forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a trade dispute reported by a claimant union on behalf of grievants; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited in the judgment
Relief refused
#Notice pay, service pay, annual leave, underpayments totalling Kshs 1,045,497 as claimed for the grievants
No employment relationship was established; the claims and reliefs sought were not justified
Certificate of service
No employment relationship existed, so no entitlement to a certificate of service arose
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear own costs instead
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In absence of such evidence to establish the employment relationship, it appears to the court that the grievants were members of their respective chamas and working for those chamas and not the respondent.
In absence of the employment relationship, the issue of the alleged verbal unfair termination does not even begin to arise.
In conclusion the suit is hereby dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs of the suit and the Deputy Registrar to return the case file to the Machakos Court Sub Registry, forthwith.
Issues in the judgment
#The memorandum of claim as reproduced is missing the first relief sought (the respondent's name in the heading and relief (a) are absent from the filed pleading as recorded)
The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Jiinuee Group of Companies (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1180 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1180/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.