Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1189 (KLR)

Odede v Guaca Stationers Limited (Cause 466 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1189 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 April 2025
JRJAMES RIKA
1,199 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court dismissed a worker's claim for permanent employment and unfair termination because he worked casually for two employers and could not prove he was dismissed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, who stated he was employed by the Respondent as a General Worker from March 2003 to 14th June 2017, claimed he was a permanent employee earning a daily wage of Kshs. 445, later Kshs. 530, working 6 days weekly. He alleged that in June 2016 the Respondent reduced his working days to 2 per week after he refused to sign a fresh contract transferring him to another entity, and that on 14th June 2017 he was locked out. He sought a declaration of permanent employment, compensation for unfair termination, notice pay, annual leave, house allowance, unpaid salaries, costs and interest. The Respondent maintained he was a casual labourer engaged on various occasions who simply stopped reporting to work. After hearing the Claimant and the Respondent's Human Resource Manager, Mercy Mumbi, the court framed three issues: whether the Claimant was a regular employee, whether his contract was unfairly terminated, and whether the prayers were merited. The court found gaping holes in the Claimant's evidence: he worked only 2 days weekly for a year, concurrently worked for another employer, Shinning Hope, and had declined to sign a written contract. He was found to be a casual employee lacking the consistency and fidelity required for regular terms. No termination was proved. All prayers were declined, the claim was dismissed, and no order was made on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was a regular employee

Holding

He was a casual employee, not a regular employee

Reasoning

The Claimant worked irregularly, including 2 days a week for a whole year, and concurrently worked for another employer, Shinning Hope. Regular employment requires consistency of service and fidelity to one employer. His pleadings and evidence could not establish permanent employment on a balance of probability.

p. 3
02

Whether the Respondent unfairly terminated his employment

Holding

No termination was proved; the claim fails

Reasoning

There was no evidence the Respondent terminated the contract. The Claimant was not locked out but opted to work for Shinning Hope. His refusal to sign a fresh contract on the CEO's instructions suggested insubordination rather than victimisation. The termination claim could not be sustained by an employee with such latitude over his days of work.

p. 3
03

Whether the ancillary monetary prayers were merited

Holding

They were declined for want of evidential foundation

Reasoning

Annual leave could not accrue to one working 2 days weekly; house allowance is built into daily wage rates under the Wage Order of 2012; and unpaid salaries were never elaborated. The declaration, compensation and notice prayers had no foundation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Simultaneous casual employment for multiple employers disqualifies a claim for conversion to regular terms
  • Daily wage rates are inclusive of the housing element

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is dismissed.
  2. 2.No order on the costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odede v Guaca Stationers Limited (Cause 466 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1189 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1189/eng@2025-04-28

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