Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Appeal dated 15th March, 2024, arising from CMEL No. 6450 of 2018· [2025] KEELRC 2692 (KLR)

Kisilu v Insight Management Limited (Appeal E068 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2692 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2025
AJABUODHA NELSON JORUM
1,410 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed you can only sue your actual employer for work injuries — the party named in your signed employment contract.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi against the judgment of Hon. A.N. Ogonda (RM) delivered on 29th February 2024 in CMEL No. 6450 of 2018, which found that the appellant had not proved an employer-employee relationship with the respondent and dismissed his work-injury claim. The appellant sought to have that finding set aside and quantum assessed at Kshs. 500,000/-, or alternatively the damages proposed by the trial magistrate. The appeal was disposed of by written submissions. Counsel for the appellant argued that no appointment letter or payslip existed, that the employer bore a mandatory duty under section 74 of the Employment Act to keep records, and that the trial court applied a standard higher than a balance of probabilities. Counsel for the respondent countered that proof of the employment contract was paramount, that failure to mount a defence did not absolve the claimant of his burden, and that comparable injury awards ranged from Kshs. 50,000/- to Kshs. 85,000/-. The court held that the appellant's own submissions described the 1st respondents as managers/agents of the 2nd respondent, and the contract of employment dated 2nd December 2015 which the appellant acknowledged signing pointed to the 2nd respondent as employer. The trial court was accordingly found right in holding there was no employer-employee relationship with the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed as against the 1st respondent, the 1st respondents were struck off the trial suit, and the suit was directed to proceed in the lower court against the 2nd respondent. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an employer-employee relationship with the 1st respondent

Holding

The trial court correctly found no employment relationship existed between the appellant and the 1st respondent, who were mere agents of the 2nd respondent

Reasoning

The court noted that counsel for the appellant had referred to the 1st respondents as managers/agents of the 2nd respondent. This, coupled with the contract of employment dated 2nd December, 2015 with the 2nd respondent which the appellant acknowledged signing, and the fact that the appellant himself joined the 2nd respondent as a party, led to the conclusion that the employer was the 2nd respondent and not the 1st respondent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an appellant acknowledges signing a contract of employment with a party joined as a respondent, that party is the employer notwithstanding the claim against a different party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed as against the 1st respondent
  2. 2.The suit as against the 2nd respondent shall proceed in the lower court to determine if merited the claims by the appellant
  3. 3.The 1st respondents are struck off the suit in the trial court
  4. 4.Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (ELRC magistracy)
CMEL No. 6450 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the ELRC over a first appeal from a magistrate's court in employment and labour matters

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kisilu v Insight Management Limited (Appeal E068 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2692 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 15th March, 2024, arising from CMEL No. 6450 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2692/eng@2025-10-03

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