Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E697 of 2021· [2025] KEELRC 2155 (KLR)

Kiio v Jtg Enterprises Ltd (Cause E697 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2155 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 July 2025
JKJ.W. Keli
3,930 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 dismissed a worker's unfair termination claim because he failed to prove an employment relationship, relying on company minutes never confirmed by the Director.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued the respondent alleging he was employed on 11th August 2019 as a supervisor at Thwake Dam at a monthly salary of Kshs. 120,000 (Kshs. 60,000 monthly and Kshs. 60,000 retainer payable cumulatively at year end), and that his employment was terminated twice without notice, on 26th February 2020 and 9th October 2020. He sought declarations of unconstitutional and unfair termination, Kshs. 1,200,000 in accumulated retainers, notice pay, leave and service pay, a certificate of service, delivery of a house per management meeting minutes of 11th August 2019, interest and costs. The respondent denied the employment relationship, asserting the claimant was engaged intermittently as an independent contractor, and alleged all the claimant's documents, including the minutes and termination letters, were forgeries. The court framed the threshold question as whether the claimant was an employee or independent contractor. It found payments varied month to month with gaps, including payment in July 2019 before the alleged commencement date, concluding the claimant was a piece-meal worker paid for work done. The minutes on which the claim was founded were of a meeting the claimant did not attend and were never confirmed by the Director to bind the company; no CR12 was produced. The claimed termination of 9th October 2020 was neither produced nor pleaded. The authorities cited on the contract of service tests were distinguished. The court held the entire claim without merit, dismissed it with costs to the respondent on 18th July 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was an employee under a contract of service or an independent contractor

Holding

The claimant was a piece-meal worker paid for work done, not an employee under a contract of service

Reasoning

Payments varied month to month with gaps, including payment in July 2019 before the alleged employment commenced on 11th August 2019. The claimant pleaded employment vide minutes of a meeting he did not attend, and the minutes lacked the Director's confirmation. The authorities cited on contract of service tests were distinguished on those facts.

p. 7
02

Whether the termination of employment was unlawful and unfair

Holding

Termination was not proved; the alleged letter of 9th October 2020 was neither produced nor pleaded

Reasoning

The claimant produced only a disputed termination letter dated 26th February 2020 whose signatories were undisclosed. He did not produce or plead how the termination of 9th October 2020 occurred, and failed to explain varied payments and gaps. Having not proved employment, no burden arose on the employer to justify termination.

p. 7
03

Evidential weight of documents alleged by the respondent to be forgeries

Holding

The respondent's allegation of forgery was not tested, but the documents failed on their own terms because the Director never confirmed the minutes

Reasoning

The respondent disputed the authenticity of the claimant's documents as forgeries but did not avail true copies or comparisons. The court instead relied on internal defects: the claimant was absent from the meeting, the minutes required the Director's confirmation which was never given, and no CR12 was filed to prove the directors.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is bound by its pleadings and evidence at variance with pleadings must be rejected
  • For a company, minutes of a meeting do not bind the company unless confirmed/signed by the director, who is the mouthpiece of the company
  • A claimant must prove employment and termination on a balance of probabilities before the burden shifts to the employer to justify termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41(1); Article 23(3)
  • Employment Act, 2007 (Cap 226)Sections 2, 9(2) and (3), 10(2)(a)-(j), 28(1)(a), 35(1)(c), 36, 45(2), 45(4), 74
  • Evidence Act (Cap 80)Sections 107(1) and (2), 109

Cases cited (4)

  • Omusamia v Upperhill Springs Restaurant
    (Cause 852 of 2017) [2021] KEELRC 3 (KLR) (5 October 2021)
  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
  • Stevenson Jordon and Harrison Limited v Mcdonald and Evans
    (1952)
  • IEBC & Another -vs- Stephen Mutinda Mule
    (2014) EKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim for unfair termination and employment benefits)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiio v Jtg Enterprises Ltd (Cause E697 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E697 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2155/eng@2025-07-18

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