Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1257 (KLR)

Johnson & 134 others v Mega Garments EPZ Limited (Cause E087 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1257 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 May 2025
3,509 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 135 workers' Ksh. 46 million claim, holding that fixed-term contracts end on their own and workers without contracts must prove employment first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
One hundred and thirty-five claimants sued the respondent, a limited liability company in the EPZ garment sector in Mombasa, claiming Ksh. 46,017,550.76 for salary in lieu of notice, leave allowance, compensation for unfair termination, alleged unlawful wage deductions in November and December 2019 and January 2020, and underpayment below the applicable Wage Orders from 2016 to 2020. The claimants fell into two categories: those with written fixed-term contracts (74 contracts filed by the respondent) and those without any documentary proof of employment. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the claimants were employed on fixed-term contracts that lapsed on 4 July 2020 with full payment for days worked, and that wages were paid within the Wage Orders. The court framed three issues: whether contract-holders were underpaid, suffered deductions or unfair termination; whether the non-contract claimants were employees and suffered similar wrongs; and costs. The court held that the fixed-term contracts terminated on their own terms without notice or reasons, that employees were paid for days worked with only the statutory one rest day, and that the wages paid exceeded the statutory minimums. As to the claimants without contracts, the court held that the burden of proof lay first on the employee to raise a prima facie case; having produced no payment statements, contracts or records of employment, that burden was not discharged. The entire claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Unfair termination of claimants with written contracts

Holding

Claim fails; the fixed-term contracts ended by expiration of their terms

Reasoning

The court examined sample contracts which had start and end dates and stated wages. Under section 10(3) of the Employment Act, a term contract terminates on its terms without notice or reasons for non-renewal, following Court of Appeal authority. Employment started and ended as agreed, so no unfair termination arose.

p. 6
02

Alleged unfair wage deductions

Holding

Claim fails; employees were paid for days worked and the contractual rest day entitlement was not breached

Reasoning

Payment statements required under section 20 of the Act showed each contract had a schedule of days at work which were remunerated in full. Section 27 of the Act requires only one rest day per week, and the Saturday hours worked were within the contract. Claiming pay for days not worked would amount to unjust enrichment.

p. 7
03

Alleged underpayment below the Wage Orders

Holding

Claim fails; the wages paid were above the statutory minimums for the relevant classifications

Reasoning

The court set out the basic minimums under the Wage Orders for general labourers, cutters and mass machinists for May 2017 and May 2018 to April 2022 and compared them with the remuneration in the contracts and pay slips, finding the basic wage paid was above the minimum provided.

p. 7
04

Claims by claimants without written contracts

Holding

Dismissed; the claimants failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving employment

Reasoning

Section 47 of the Act places the burden of proof on the employee. The employee must first establish a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the employer. Given the respondent's practice of issuing written contracts, claimants without any record of employment were required to file some proof of employment from 2017 to 2020; the two witnesses who testified had no records, and the burden was not discharged.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A fixed-term contract terminates on its own terms at expiry without notice or reasons for non-renewal
  • The burden of proof in employment claims starts with the employee, who must raise a prima facie case before the evidential burden shifts to the employer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Johnson & 134 others v Mega Garments EPZ Limited (Cause E087 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1257/eng@2025-05-05

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