Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2086 (KLR)

Rambukwella v DL Koisagat Tea Estate Limited (Cause E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2086 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 July 2025
MOMaureen Onyango
4,282 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that calling a worker a 'consultant' does not matter if the working relationship looks and functions like employment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent filed a notice of motion dated 17th February 2025 seeking striking out of the Claimant's suit on the ground that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction because the parties' relationship, governed by a Consulting Contract of 13th June 2022 and an Addendum, was a consultancy arrangement and not employment. It relied on Article 5(j) designating the Claimant an independent contractor, payment of a monthly fee subject to 15% withholding tax without PAYE, NSSF, NHIF or Housing Levy deductions, and an arbitration clause in Clause 5(L). The Claimant opposed, deposing that he reported to senior management, worked fixed hours exclusively for the Respondent, performed managerial and administrative duties, depended wholly on the Respondent for income, and that the consultancy label was a device to evade statutory employer obligations. He also argued the arbitration plea was a bad-faith delay tactic given the Respondent's acknowledged outstanding debt. In written submissions the Respondent relied on the control, integration and economic reality factors, citing Ocean Freight, Market Investigations and other authorities; the Claimant cited Kenya Port Authority v Saka and Nairobi Bottlers. The court framed a single issue: whether the Claimant was an employee or an independent contractor. Applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests, and noting the office at the factory, company car and fuel, leave entitlements with family travel, medical reimbursements, tools of trade, fixed 24-month term and net monthly salary after tax deduction, the court held the relationship was one of employment despite the consultancy terminology. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was an employee or an independent contractor

Holding

The relationship was one of employer and employee notwithstanding the consultancy terminology in the contract

Reasoning

The court applied the control test (reporting to the Executive Chairman, assignment of any other duties, leave requiring approval), the integration test (the Claimant was General Manager in charge of overall operations with no separation from the business), the economic reality test (he was not in business on his own account), and the mutuality of obligation test (commitment over a fixed 24-month term). Indicia such as office at the factory, company car, tools, net salary after tax deduction, leave and medical benefits all pointed to employment. Substance prevailed over labels.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • In determining the existence of an employment relationship, the court goes beyond the terminology used by the parties and examines the substance of the relationship

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's application dated 17th February 2025 seeking striking out of the claim for want of jurisdiction is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; court determined whether an employer-employee relationship existed

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rambukwella v DL Koisagat Tea Estate Limited (Cause E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2086/eng@2025-07-10

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