Lukalia v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited (Cause 217 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1416 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee without a disciplinary process was unfair, awarding him over Kshs 220,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Nature of the Claimant's employment contract (casual/piece-rate vs monthly)
The Claimant was neither a casual nor a piece-rate employee; having worked continuously for more than a month, his contract converted under section 37(1) to a monthly paid contract
A casual employee is defined as one paid at the end of each day and engaged for not longer than 24 hours at a time. The Claimant was paid a daily wage of Kshs. 429 but the payment itself was computed weekly, fortnightly or otherwise, not by the day. The Respondent failed to explain what piece rate meant. Section 37(1) deems a casual employee working an aggregate of not less than one month to be on monthly wages, attracting section 35(1)(c) notice.
Date of commencement of employment
Employment commenced in July 2007 as the Claimant asserted, because the Respondent failed to produce employment records to disprove it
The NSSF Statement was not evidence of the date of employment but only of when remittances started. Under section 10(7) of the Employment Act, where an employer fails to produce a written contract or prescribed particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment falls on the employer. The Respondent's failure to produce records meant the court adopted the Claimant's averred start date of July 2007.
Whether the termination was unfair
The termination was both procedurally and substantively unfair; there was no valid reason and no disciplinary process was undertaken
The criminal court's judgment showed the Claimant was arrested while at work, the tractor he drove was faulty and never left the yard, and he was never connected with the alleged theft or handling of stolen property. Acquittal apart, the employer never subjected him to any disciplinary process. Section 45(2) requires the employer to prove both valid reason and fair procedure, failing which the termination is unfair.
Entitlement to reliefs
Pay in lieu of notice, 10 months' compensation and leave dues were awarded; house allowance and service pay were declined
Pay in lieu of notice was due under sections 35, 36 and 49(1). Compensation of 10 months' salary was assessed under section 49(4) considering length of service, manner of termination, terms of work, salary and absence of other terminal benefits. Leave dues at 21 days per year for 9 years were awarded as the Respondent admitted no leave was taken. House allowance and service pay were excluded because daily rates were consolidated and the Claimant was an NSSF member.
Legal principles established
#- A casual employee who works for an aggregate period equivalent to not less than one month has his contract deemed to be one where wages are paid monthly under section 37(1) of the Employment Act
- Where an employer fails to produce a written contract or written particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment lies on the employer (section 10(7))
- Where an employee suspected of a criminal offence is not subjected to a disciplinary process by the employer, and the employer proves neither valid reason nor fair procedure, the termination is unfair
Court orders
#- 1.Award of pay in lieu of notice of Kshs. 12,870
- 2.Award of compensation for unfair termination of 10 months' salary being Kshs. 128,700
- 3.Award of annual leave dues for 189 days at Kshs. 81,081
- 4.Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs
- 5.Interest to accrue from date of judgment at court rates
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance Memorandum of Claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mary Nanjala Nyongesa v Tsula Health Care Ltd T/A Wanda Medical Centre[2026] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)24 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lukalia v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited (Cause 217 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1416 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 217 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1416/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.