Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 8th November 2021)· [2025] KEELRC 1707 (KLR)

Bore & 2 others v Jubilee Party & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E917 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1707 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 June 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
3,972 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that Jubilee Party wrongly treated three staff members as consultants and must pay each Kshs. 1,050,000 for unfair termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Three claimants, formerly engaged by Jubilee Party as Director Membership Development, Director of Elections, Strategy and Political Affairs and Director Logistics, sued the party and its Secretary General and National Chairperson, contending that letters dated 8th October 2021 signed by one Wambui Gichuru wrongly terminated their services as 'consultancy services' under a purported restructuring, when in fact they were employees, and that the termination evaded the redundancy procedure under Section 40 of the Employment Act. They sought declarations of unlawful termination, damages, a certificate of service and costs. The respondents denied an employer-employee relationship, asserting the claimants were independent consultants engaged as needed, that the party had managerial prerogative to restructure, and that in any event proper redundancy procedure under Section 40(1) was followed; they also raised jurisdictional and misjoinder objections and defects in the verifying affidavit and authority to testify. The 2nd Claimant testified but produced no written authority to act for the others; the respondents called no evidence. The court framed three issues: whether the claimants were employees, whether termination was fair, and entitlement to remedies. Holding the claimants' case uncontroverted, it found they were employees and were unfairly terminated. Each claimant was awarded three months' salary (Kshs. 900,000) as compensation and prorated leave for six months (Kshs. 150,000), less statutory deductions, totaling Kshs. 1,050,000. The 1st Respondent was ordered to pay costs plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimants were employees of the 1st Respondent or independent consultants

Holding

The court found the claimants were employees, the case being uncontroverted as the respondents called no evidence.

Reasoning

The claimants produced bank statements showing periodic monthly payments of Kshs. 300,000 which they said was salary. Although there were no employment letters or payslips, the respondents denied employment but chose not to adduce any evidence, leaving the claimants' case uncontroverted. The court accepted the employment relationship and found unfair termination proved.

p. 8
02

Whether the termination was fair and just

Holding

The termination was unfair, entitling each claimant to compensation.

Reasoning

The claimants, characterised by the respondents as consultants but held to be employees, were terminated via 'restructuring' letters with only an ex-gratia payment of one month's fees. No evidence was tendered by the respondents to justify a fair procedure. The court awarded three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination plus prorated leave.

p. 8
03

Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Partially - the court awarded compensation and prorated leave but not the full remedies claimed.

Reasoning

The court granted each claimant 3 months' salary (Kshs. 900,000) as compensation and prorated leave for 6 months (Kshs. 150,000), totaling Kshs. 1,050,000 less statutory deductions. The declaratory reliefs, certificate of service and damages as framed in the Memorandum of Claim were not granted as sought. Costs and interest were awarded against the 1st Respondent.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who denies employing claimants but adduces no evidence risks the claimant's case being treated as uncontroverted and proved.
  • Payment of a fixed monthly amount into claimants' accounts, without contracts of service, can suffice to prove an employment relationship where uncontroverted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of 3 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination to each claimant (3 x 300,000 = Kshs. 900,000/-)
  2. 2.Award of prorated leave for 6 months to each claimant (Kshs. 150,000/-)
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs. 1,050,000/- per claimant less statutory deductions
  4. 4.1st Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (challenged by Respondents on the basis that there was no employer-employee relationship)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bore & 2 others v Jubilee Party & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E917 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1707 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 8th November 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1707/eng@2025-06-11

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