Iteba & 9 others v Cyka Manpower Services Limited (Appeal E029 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2359 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that 'casual' workers become protected employees after a month of work, entitling them to fair process and compensation when terminated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the appellants' employment
They were employed on piece-rate/casual basis but became protected under section 37(1)
The respondent admitted engaging the appellants on piece-rate terms from 2018 to 2021 under its Tata Magadi Chemical contract but failed to reduce employment into writing. Casual hiring that exploits labour contrary to Article 41 protections cannot stand; the appellants therefore acquired rights and benefits under section 37.
Fairness of termination
Termination without due process was unfair; trial court's contrary finding wrong
Once the appellants were protected employees, sections 41 and 45 required procedural fairness before termination. The expiry of the Tata Magadi contract did not excuse the absence of due process, so the trial court's dismissal of the unfair termination claims was incorrect.
Terminal dues
Compensation of 3 months, one month notice pay and 33 leave days awarded; other heads refused
Compensation and notice pay are justified and calculated on last wages. Leave pay is due under section 28, with accrued leave capped at 18 months under section 28(4). House allowance, public holidays and unlawful deductions claims fail for lack of particulars or justification.
Legal principles established
#- A casual employee who works continuously for an aggregate of not less than one month, or performs work expected to last three months or more, becomes a protected employee under section 37(1) of the Employment Act
- Employment terminated without due process is unlawful and unfair under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
- On a first appeal the court re-evaluates the material on record but must bear in mind it did not see or hear the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment in Mombasa CMELRC No. E363 of 2021 set aside
- 2.Declaration that employment of each appellant was terminated unfairly
- 3.Each appellant awarded 3 months' compensation (Ksh. 63,000 each; Ksh. 81,000 for Hassan Milkau; Ksh. 21,000 for Joel Kataka)
- 4.Each appellant awarded one month's notice pay (Ksh. 21,000 each; Ksh. 27,900 for Hassan Milkau; Ksh. 63,000 for Gilbert Maloba)
- 5.Each appellant awarded 33 leave days' pay (Ksh. 23,100 each; Ksh. 29,700 for Hassan Milkau)
- 6.Costs of the appeal and the trial court proceedings to the appellants
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC), Mombasa
- CMELRC No. E363 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Iteba & 9 others v Cyka Manpower Services Limited (Appeal E029 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Appeal (from Mombasa CMELRC No. E363 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2359/eng@2025-08-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.