Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 3033 (KLR)

Flodida Construction Machinery Limited v Wanyonyi (Cause E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3033 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 November 2025
3,313 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court can hear employers' claims to recover money diverted by employees — it's not reserved for the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued its former employee, the respondent, on 21st March 2025 seeking recovery of Kshs.28,167,721.00 allegedly diverted by the respondent in the course of his employment as Operations Manager of the claimant's quarry crusher plant, together with costs. The respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 17th September 2025 contending that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction because the claim was for special and general damages for funds allegedly stolen, a civil cause in debt, fraud or conversion reserved for the High Court. Relying on Maisha Mapya Kenya Foundation Ltd v Shikuku, counsel for the respondent urged that recovery of misappropriated funds is not an employment dispute. The claimant relied on Junction Forex Bureau Ltd v Walid Mohammed Ratique, urging that misappropriation by an employee handling employer funds breaches the contract of service and fiduciary duties and is recoverable in the ELRC. The court applied Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' v Caltex Oil and Samuel Kamau Macharia on jurisdiction, and Mukisa Biscuit on preliminary objections. It held that the claim was anchored on the contract of employment dated 1st August 2023; that 'arising out of employment' encompasses theft, misappropriation and diversion of funds by an employee acting in that capacity; and that Section 12(3) of the ELRC Act empowers the court to award special and general damages. The respondent's preliminary objection was dismissed with no orders as to costs, with 14 days given for compliance in readiness for the hearing of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over employer's recovery of misappropriated funds

Holding

The court has jurisdiction because the claim is anchored on the contract of employment; the phrase 'arising out of employment' covers misappropriation and diversion of funds by an employee acting in that capacity

Reasoning

The respondent, as Operations Manager, handled monetary transactions for the claimant under the employment contract dated 1st August 2023 and stood in a fiduciary position analogous to a director or trustee. The claim for the specific sum received in the course of employment but not handed over is analogous to an action for money had and received, a dispute arising out of employment under Section 12(1)(a). Section 12(2) permits suits by or against an employee, and Section 12(3) empowers the court to award special and general damages.

p. 6
02

Whether the claim is one for general damages rendering it non-employment related

Holding

The claimant sued for a specific sum, not general damages; and in any event Section 12(3) confers jurisdiction to award special and general damages

Reasoning

The court found the claimant's case was for a specific sum of Kshs.28,167,721.00 received by the respondent in the course of employment but not handed over, not a claim for general damages. Section 12(3)(i)-(viii) provides an elaborate list of reliefs including special and general damages, plus any other appropriate relief, so the nature of relief sought does not oust jurisdiction.

p. 6
03

Duty of an employee handling employer's funds

Holding

An employee entrusted with monetary transactions owes fiduciary-type obligations of trust, confidence, honesty, good faith and duty to account

Reasoning

Although a contract of employment is not one of utmost good faith per se, it has elements of that principle, particularly where the employee handles money. The respondent, as Operations Manager overseeing all aspects of the quarry business and dealing with customers daily, stood in a fiduciary position analogous to a director, partner or trustee, precluded from profiting from dealings with third parties at the employer's expense.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and a court cannot exercise jurisdiction not conferred by law
  • A prior decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction is binding but may be departed from for good reason, and where two decisions conflict the court is free to adopt either or chart a new path
  • The ELRC has jurisdiction over employer claims against employees for funds misappropriated or diverted in the course of employment, as disputes arising out of employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 17th September 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.Parties have 14 days to comply in readiness for hearing of the main suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Flodida Construction Machinery Limited v Wanyonyi (Cause E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3033 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3033/eng@2025-11-03

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