Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 29th January 2025· [2025] KEELRC 2631 (KLR)

Namaemba v Consolidated Human Resource Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2631 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 September 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
4,540 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee claiming unfair dismissal in Kenya must produce the actual employment contract, because payslips alone cannot prove how the job ended.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, employed as a cleaner from 1st September 2024 at a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 15,000, petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court seeking declarations that her dismissal was wrongful and unfair, that her rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 41 and 47 were violated, payment in lieu of notice, 12 months' salary compensation, damages of Kshs. 5,000,000 for discrimination on account of a known medical condition, and general damages. She alleged that after presenting medical reports recommending light duties she was blocked from the Respondent's premises and effectively terminated. The Respondent countered that the court lacked jurisdiction for want of exhaustion of remedies, that the Petitioner was on successive three-month fixed-term contracts that lapsed by effluxion of time on 28th February 2025, that no light duties other than her housekeeping role existed, that she declined to resume work and spent days in the washrooms, and that she was retained on the payroll and paid through the contract's end. The court noted the Respondent admitted the employment but observed that the fixed-term contracts relied upon were never exhibited; only payslips were produced. Holding that the Petitioner, having averred the employment relationship, bore the duty to prove its nature and how it ended, the court found the petition not proved and dismissed it, with no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Petitioner proved the nature and termination of her employment contract

Holding

The petition failed because the Respondent's alleged fixed-term contracts were never produced and there was no evidence of how the engagement ended

Reasoning

The Respondent admitted employing the Petitioner but asserted her contract expired by effluxion of time on 28 February 2025. However, the contracts relied on were never exhibited before court; only payslips were produced. The Petitioner, who averred the employment relationship, bore the burden of proving its nature and how it ended. In the absence of that evidence, the court could not find an unfair termination or constitutional violation.

p. 9
02

Burden of proof in the petition

Holding

The Petitioner, having alleged the employment relationship, bore the duty to prove it, and failed to discharge that burden

Reasoning

Although the Petitioner submitted that under section 43(1) of the Employment Act the employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination, the court found the threshold question was proof of the employment relationship itself and its mode of termination. With no contract exhibited and conflicting accounts of the events of December 2024 to February 2025, the Petitioner did not prove her case to the required standard, so the petition failed.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging an employment relationship bears the duty to prove it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition failed and was dismissed
  2. 2.No order of costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction invoked under Rule 10 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Legal Notice 133 of 2024 on enforcement of constitutional rights

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Namaemba v Consolidated Human Resource Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2631 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 29th January 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2631/eng@2025-09-30

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