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 1265 (KLR)

Moranga v Seluk Investments Limited (Cause E705 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1265 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 April 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,743 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court threw out a Ksh 1.6 million pay claim because the claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee, so the court had no jurisdiction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the Respondent seeking Ksh. 1,642,500.00 as unpaid remuneration, plus interest and costs, alleging he was employed as site manager of the Tala drainage project (GMC/KUSP/025/2018-2019) between 1st May 2019 and 15th April 2020 at Ksh. 5,000 per day. The Respondent denied any employment relationship, asserting the Claimant was engaged as an independent contractor for a one-off project, was paid the agreed contract fees in full, and that some of the Claimant's documents were forgeries reported to the police. The court framed three issues: the nature of the labour relationship, whether the Claimant was fully remunerated, and entitlement to the reliefs sought. It first resolved the jurisdictional question of the relationship's nature. The alleged employment agreement dated 2nd April 2019 was disowned by the Respondent; a director denied signing it and an uncontroverted forensic document examiner found the signatures were not authentic, leading the court to find the document's authenticity questionable and to rely on alternate evidence. Applying the control test among others, the court noted both parties agreed the Claimant hired and paid his own staff at his own cost, which pointed to an independent contractor relationship. Relying on Chrismer Express Limited & another v Killmall International Limited, the court held that the ELRC has no jurisdiction over independent contractor disputes, downed its tools, and declined to determine the remaining issues. It made no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered online with the parties' consent, waiving Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the labour relationship between the parties

Holding

The parties had an independent contractor relationship, not an employment relationship

Reasoning

The court applied the control test among others. Both parties agreed the Claimant hired and paid his own staff for the project at his own cost, indicating he was in charge of procuring personnel for execution of the works. This pointed to an independent contractor relationship. The uncontroverted expert evidence also undermined the authenticity of the alleged employment agreement relied on by the Claimant.

p. 4
02

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over independent contractor disputes

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction where the relationship is one of independent contractor

Reasoning

Because jurisdiction is donated by the presence of an employment relationship, once the court found the relationship was that of independent contractor, it could not determine the remaining issues on remuneration and had to decline jurisdiction.

p. 4
03

Authenticity of the alleged employment agreement dated 2nd April 2019

Holding

The court found the authenticity of the document questionable and declined to rely on it

Reasoning

The Respondent called a director who denied signing the agreement and a forensic document examiner who concluded the signatures were not those of the three officials. No contrary expert evidence was presented, so the court accepted the defense expert's findings.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Employment and Labour Relations Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving independent contractors
  • Whether a labour relation is employment or independent contractor is a matter of law and fact, determined through tests including the control test, degree of integration test, mixed test, mutuality of obligations test and economic reality test
  • A party who hires and pays his own staff for a project is an independent contractor rather than an employee

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court declared that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as the parties had an independent contractor and not an employment relationship
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Chrismer Express Limited & another v Killmall International Limited
    (Cause 385A of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 227 (KLR) (27 January 2023)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction contingent on existence of an employment relationship; court held it lacks jurisdiction over independent contractor disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moranga v Seluk Investments Limited (Cause E705 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1265 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1265/eng@2025-04-30

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