Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedEmployment and Labour Relations Court Appeal arising from MCELRC No. 1958 of 2021· [2025] KEELRC 1594 (KLR)

Nyanchongi v Seb Estate Limited (Appeal E113 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1594 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
23 May 2025
3,144 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that paying someone's salary and supervising them makes you their employer, awarding a dismissed security guard over Kshs. 257,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court from the judgment of Hon. W.K. Micheni (CM) delivered on 8 March 2024 in Milimani MCELRC No. 1958 of 2021, which dismissed the appellant's claim for unlawful and unfair termination as a security guard. The appellant claimed he was employed by the respondent from 2005 without a formal contract, paid a net salary without payslips, and dismissed in May 2020. The respondent denied employing him, asserting it was merely an estate agent managing Shammah Estate for an undisclosed landlord. Applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., the court re-evaluated the evidence and found that RW1 Edwin Gitau admitted paying the appellant's salary and supervising him, alleged only agency for an unnamed landlord, produced no contract proving the agency, and forwarded the demand letter to the respondent's advocate rather than the landlord. The court held the employment relationship proved on a balance of probability and faulted the respondent for failing to issue a third-party notice to the alleged landlord. Relying on the concurrent claim in Milimani Commercial MCELRC/E1954/2021 by Hon. Ogonda, whose decision it adopted mutatis mutandis, the court found the termination unfair for want of reason and notice. The appeal was allowed; the trial judgment was set aside and judgment entered for the claimant of Kshs. 257,248.60 with interest from the date of filing suit, plus costs of the suit and of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an employer-employee relationship

Holding

The relationship was proved on a balance of probability; payment of salary and supervision established control

Reasoning

The claimant testified he was engaged and paid salary by the respondent. RW1 Edwin Gitau admitted paying the salary and supervising, alleging he acted for an undisclosed landlord. No contract evidencing the agency was produced, the demand letter was forwarded to the respondent's advocate rather than the landlord, and the alleged termination of the management contract was unproved. Payment and supervision pointed to the respondent as employer.

p. 4
02

Failure to join the alleged landlord

Holding

The respondent, having alleged liability of a landlord, ought to have issued a third-party notice; failure meant it took responsibility for the claim

Reasoning

In civil proceedings, a sued party alleging that a third party is liable must take out third-party proceedings. The respondent did not join the alleged landlord whose identity was never disclosed, and produced no contract evidencing the agency. It therefore bore responsibility for the claim.

p. 4
03

Fairness of termination

Holding

The termination was unfair and unprocedural; the adopted judgment found termination without notice or reason contrary to section 35(1) of the Employment Act

Reasoning

Adopting the judgment in Milimani Commercial MCELRC/E1954/2021 by Hon. Ogonda involving a co-employee dismissed at the same time, the court found the respondent gave no reason and no notice, contrary to sections 35(1), 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, entitling the claimant to compensation under section 49(1)(c) and one month's notice pay.

p. 5
04

Reliefs and quantification

Holding

Total award of Kshs. 257,248.60 covering notice pay, leave days and underpayment, limited to three years, with interest and costs

Reasoning

Guided by the adopted judgment, the court allowed one month's notice pay, leave days of Kshs. 26,668.60 and underpayment of Kshs. 135,576 limited to three years under Charles Kariuki Mwangi v Intersecurity Services Limited. Severance, service pay and overtime were disallowed for want of proof.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, though making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
  • A party alleging that a third party is liable must take out third-party proceedings, failing which it bears responsibility for the claim
  • A termination must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair to pass the fairness test
  • Employment Act claims are limited to three years' recovery

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judgment and Orders of the Honourable W.K. Micheni (CM) delivered on 8th March 2024 in MCELRC No. 1958 of 2021 set aside
  2. 2.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent
  3. 3.Notice pay of 1 month - Kshs. 13,572
  4. 4.Leave days - Kshs. 26,668.60
  5. 5.Underpayment - Kshs. 135,576
  6. 6.Total award of Kshs. 257,248.60 with interest from date of filing suit
  7. 7.Costs of the suit to the claimant
  8. 8.Costs of the appeal to the appellant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 20
  • Employment ActSection 45(1),(2),(4),(5)
  • Employment ActSection 35(1) and 35(6)(d)
  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 49(1)(c)
  • Employment ActSection 51
  • Employment ActSection 2 (definition of redundancy)

Cases cited (9)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co.
    [1968] EA 123
  • Mbogo v Shah
    [1968] EA Page 93
  • Ndolo v Seb Estates Limited
    [2024] KEELRC 2031 (KLR)
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
  • Kenya Broadcasting Corporation v Geofrey Wakio
    [2019] eKLR
  • Ol Pejeta Ranching Limited v David Wanjau Muhoro
    [2017] eKLR
  • Hassanath Wanjiku v Vanela House of Coffees
    [2018] eKLR
  • Charles Kariuki Mwangi v Intersecurity Services Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Milimani Commercial MCELRC/E1954/2021 (decision of Hon. Ogonda adopted)
On appeal from
Milimani Chief Magistrate Employment and Labour Relations Court
MCELRC No. 1958 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (magistrates' court appeal), no specific constitutional provision cited

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyanchongi v Seb Estate Limited (Appeal E113 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Court Appeal arising from MCELRC No. 1958 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1594/eng@2025-05-23

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