Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim dated 9th April 2018, filed 15th May 2018· [2025] KEELRC 1344 (KLR)

Khamala v Race Course Primary School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 186 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1344 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 May 2025
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
3,262 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a school worker's claim for Kshs 556,306 because he couldn't prove he was actually employed by the school.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the Respondent school alleging he was orally employed as a grounds man from 4th April 2012 on permanent terms, earning a gross salary rising from Kshs 4,000 to Kshs 8,000, and that his services were unlawfully terminated on 30th November 2016 on unsubstantiated allegations of involvement in a break-in at the school, without a show cause letter or disciplinary hearing. He sought a declaration of unfair termination and terminal dues of Kshs 556,306.84, including notice pay, twelve months' compensation, overtime, underpayment, salary arrears for seven months, leave and public holiday dues, house allowance and service pay, plus costs and interest. The Respondent denied ever employing him; its Principal (RW1) and former Principal (RW2) testified that no such employment appeared in the school records, that the recommendation letter dated 17th March 2016 relied on by the Claimant was not in the records and was denied by the former Principal, and that public school subordinate staff are engaged by the Board of Management through a formal process. The court framed three issues: existence of an employment relationship, fairness of termination, and entitlement to remedies. Applying Regulation 17 of the Basic Education Regulations, 2015, which vests employment of non-teaching staff in the Board of Management, the court held the principal had no authority to employ the Claimant and that the Claimant failed to prove an employment relationship on a balance of probabilities. The dependent issues on unfair termination and remedies were not determined. The claim was dismissed in its entirety, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employment relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondent

Holding

The Claimant failed to prove an employment relationship on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

The Claimant alleged oral employment by the former principal, supported only by a recommendation letter dated 17th March 2016 which the Respondent and its former principal denied issuing or authoring, with no forgery complaint lodged. The court held that under Regulation 17 of the Basic Education Regulations, 2015 only the Board of Management may employ support staff, so the principal had no authority to employ the Claimant and it did not matter whether the letter emanated from her.

p. 7
02

Whether the termination was unfair and whether remedies were payable

Holding

Not determined; the issues were dependent on proof of an employment relationship, which failed

Reasoning

The court found it unnecessary and illogical to determine the fairness of the termination and entitlement to remedies because both issues were conditional on the existence of an employment relationship. Having found none proved, the entire claim, including terminal dues of Kshs 556,306.84, notice pay, 12 months' compensation, overtime, underpayment, salary arrears, leave, public holiday dues, house allowance and service pay, fell away.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Only the Board of Management of a public school is mandated under the Basic Education Regulations, 2015 to employ non-teaching staff; an alleged oral engagement by a principal is ineffective as the principal lacks authority to employ
  • A claimant alleging an oral employment contract must adduce documentary or viva voce evidence to corroborate their word, notwithstanding the employer's documentation duty

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 10
  • Employment Actsection 35(1)(c)
  • Employment Actsections 41(1), 44(4), 45(2) and 43
  • Basic Education RegulationsRegulation 17
  • Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Orderrespective years of employment

Cases cited (3)

  • Benjamin Langwen vs National Environment Management Authority
    (2016) eKLR
  • Benard B Kones Ndiema v Twin Oaks Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Casmur Nyankuru Nyaberi v Mwakikar Agencies Limited
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction limited by existence of an employment relationship as defined in law (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khamala v Race Course Primary School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 186 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1344 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 9th April 2018, filed 15th May 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1344/eng@2025-05-09

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