Mwololo v Sana Industries Company Ltd (Appeal E215 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2445 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A worker paid twice a month and reporting daily is not a casual employee, so Kenyan employers must follow proper redundancy procedures before letting such staff go.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Nature of employment - casual or protected
The appellant was not a casual employee but a protected employee under section 37 of the Employment Act, as she was paid bi-monthly and reported to work every morning
Under section 2 of the Act, casual employment starts and ends each day with daily payment. The appellant was not paid daily but bi-monthly, reported each morning and was assigned duties. Her employment was therefore continuous and protected under section 37, attracting rights and benefits under the Act.
Validity of the termination
The employment was wrongfully and unfairly terminated; the appellant's account of being sent away on account of reduced work was accepted, and the alleged abscondment and internal notices were unsupported by evidence
The employer's assertions that the appellant absconded after visiting the bank were unsupported by evidence. The internal notices lacked the appellant's forwarding address, one notice was issued years after the alleged abscondment, and internal notices could not address alleged abscondment. No section 40 notices were issued. Due process, notice, reasons and justification were absent.
Remedies for unfair termination
Compensation equivalent to three months' salary under sections 45 and 49 of the Act, computed at Ksh. 672 x 30 x 3 = Ksh. 60,480
Having worked from July 2019 to December 2021, a period of two full years, the court found compensation at three months' salary sufficient under sections 45 and 49 of the Act, computed on the daily wage of Ksh. 672.
Legal principles established
#- An employee paid bi-monthly and reporting daily is not a casual employee; continuous work beyond casual employment is protected under section 37 of the Employment Act
- The employer bears the legal duty to produce employment records in an employment dispute (sections 10(6), (7) and 74 of the Employment Act)
- Reduction of work as a mode of separation must comply with section 40 of the Employment Act - notice to the employee and the labour officer
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment in Ruiru CMELRC E290 of 2024 is set aside
- 2.Judgment entered for the appellant - employment terminated wrongfully and unfairly
- 3.Compensation of KSh. 60,480
- 4.Costs of the appeal and the trial court proceedings awarded to the appellant
- On appeal from
- Ruiru Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
- Ruiru MCELRC No. E290 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the magistrate's court (ELRC) to the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwololo v Sana Industries Company Ltd (Appeal E215 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). E215 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2445/eng@2026-08-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.