Equator Bottlers Limited v Omanga (Appeal E045 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1461 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that long-serving 'casual' workers automatically become permanent employees, but cut some of the money awarded to the worker.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Learned Magistrate erred in determining the conversion of casual employment to permanent employment absent a specific pleading
- 2.Whether the award of 'benefits in lieu of service' was a remedy recognized under the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the adoption of Kshs. 18,000/- as the Respondent's monthly salary had an evidentiary basis
- 4.Whether the award for annual leave pay was supported by particulars and evidence
- 5.Whether the finding of unlawful termination was supported by evidence
- 6.Whether the Magistrate had a proper basis for exercising discretion to award twelve months' salary as compensation
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's casual employment converted to a permanent/monthly term contract
The Court upheld the Magistrate's finding that the Respondent's employment was converted under section 37 of the Employment Act, entitling him to a monthly salary.
Section 37(1) deems a casual employee who works for a period equivalent to not less than one month, or performs work expected to last three months or more, to be employed on monthly wages. The Respondent served continuously from 2018 to 2022, meeting the statutory threshold. The Court found basis for the Magistrate's conclusion that a monthly salary was payable.
The correct monthly salary figure for computation of awards
The Magistrate's adoption of Kshs. 18,000/- was erroneous; using the Appellant's own daily wage multiplicand of Kshs. 653.10, the monthly salary is Kshs. 16,980.60, and all monetary awards were recomputed on that basis.
The Court used the daily wage of Kshs. 653.10 supplied by the Appellant itself, multiplying to Kshs. 16,980.60 per month. The difference of Kshs. 1,019.40 was deducted from the notice pay. The compensation and leave awards were recalculated using the corrected figure.
Whether the termination was unfair and whether 12 months' compensation was warranted
The termination was unfair; no disciplinary action, notice or hearing was conducted, and an award of 12 months' compensation under section 49 was upheld given the length of service.
The Appellant did not subject the Respondent to any disciplinary process, issue notice, or conduct a hearing. Having served from 2018 to 2022 per the pay advice produced in court, the award of 12 months' wages as compensation under section 49 was found sufficient and in order.
Award of benefits in lieu of service
The award of benefits in lieu of service was reversed as no such remedy exists in law.
Service pay arises under section 35 of the Employment Act. The Respondent was not entitled to service pay, and benefits in lieu of service are not provided for in the Employment Act. The Magistrate therefore lacked any legal basis for that head of award, which was set aside.
Annual leave dues and limitation
The leave award was reduced to three years' entitlement on limitation grounds under section 90 of the Employment Act.
Although the Respondent served six years, claims for the earlier years were statute-barred under section 90. The Court therefore limited recoverable leave dues to three years, computed at Kshs. 50,941.80 using the corrected monthly salary.
Legal principles established
#- An employee initially engaged on casual terms whose service meets the thresholds in section 37(1) of the Employment Act is converted to a monthly paid term contract.
- Benefits in lieu of service are not a remedy known to law under the Employment Act.
- A first appellate court may reconsider the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- Leave claims are subject to the limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act, restricting recovery to three years of accrued leave.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Respondent was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Compensation for the unlawful and unfair dismissal equivalent to 12 months salary - Kshs. 203,767.20.
- 3.Annual leave dues for 3 years - Kshs. 50,941.80.
- 4.Certificate of service.
- 5.Costs and interest of the claim in the Magistrate's Court to the Respondent.
- 6.No order on the costs for the appeal.
- 7.The decision of the Learned Magistrate set aside and substituted with a decision allowing the Respondent's claim to the stated extent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Winam
- Not stated in the judgment as provided
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Magistrate's Court in employment and labour relations matters
Relief refused
#Benefits in lieu of service (Kshs. 45,000/- as awarded by the Magistrate)
Benefits in lieu of service are not provided for in law and service pay was not available to the Respondent
Costs of the appeal
The Court made no order on the costs for the appeal
Costs
Costs and interest of the claim in the Magistrate's Court awarded to the Respondent; no order on the costs for the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court, as the first appellate court, is entitled to reconsider the evidence, evaluate it and draw its own conclusions but making allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
The Respondent served for a period which indeed converted his contract of employment to that covered under section 37 and 35. The learned Magistrate did not err in holding the Respondent had his term converted.
The Appellant did not take the Respondent through any disciplinary action, no notice was served upon the Respondent nor was a hearing conducted.
In the final analysis, the decision of the Learned Magistrate is set aside and substituted with a decision allowing the Respondent's claim to the following extent:
Compensation for the unlawful and unfair dismissal equivalent to 12 months salary – Kshs. 16,980.60 x 12 = Kshs. 203,767.20
No order on the costs for the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Respondent 'had worked for the Appellant from 2018 to 2022 per the pay advice produced in Court which was a period of 6 years', but the period 2018-2022 is approximately four years, not six; the pleadings also describe employment beginning in October 2017.
The judgment does not record the case number of the memorandum of appeal or the trial suit number, and no neutral citation is provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equator Bottlers Limited v Omanga (Appeal E045 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1461/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.