Elizabeth Ngina Mutisya v Arrow Motors Group East Africa Limited & 2 Others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that calling a worker a 'consultant' doesn't avoid employment obligations, awarding Kshs 601,932 for unfair termination.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondents.
- 2.Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated by the Respondents.
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Claimant and the Respondents
No employment relationship for 2021 (salary and statutory deductions paid by Tristem Estates Limited with no proven link to the Respondents), but an employment relationship existed from January 2022 despite the 'consultant' label.
Applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality tests, the court found no consultancy agreement existed; the Claimant filled leave forms stamped by the 2nd Respondent, was asked to show cause for abscondment, and was paid via M-Pesa vouchers. These hallmarks of employment outweighed the consultant label.
Whether the Claimant was unfairly terminated
Termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Having found an employment relationship, the Respondents took no disciplinary steps, gave no reasons for termination and issued no notice. Section 43 requires the employer to prove valid and fair reasons; failure amounts to unfair termination under Section 45.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially: two months' compensation for unfair termination, one month's notice pay, salary arrears of Kshs 226,932 and house allowance of Kshs 75,000; leave and service pay claims rejected.
Compensation was assessed under Section 49(4) considering the short service (about 5 months) and the Respondent's conduct. Notice pay was due as no termination notice issued. Salary arrears were due under Sections 17, 18 and 19. House allowance was pegged at 15% of basic pay as no evidence of housing or consolidated salary was adduced.
Legal principles established
#- Labels given to a working relationship do not control; the surrounding evidence determines whether it is a contract of service or a contract for services.
- Requiring leave forms and show-cause explanations from a 'consultant' is inconsistent with an independent contractor relationship and evidences employment.
- Termination requires both substantive and procedural fairness; failure to prove reasons renders termination unfair under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.One month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 100,000/-
- 2.Salary arrears for March, April 2022 and 7 days of May 2022 of Kshs 226,932
- 3.Unpaid leave: NIL
- 4.House allowance of Kshs 75,000/-
- 5.Service pay: NIL
- 6.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs 200,000
- 7.The Respondent to issue a certificate of service to the Claimant
- 8.Total award of Kshs 601,932 with costs to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment dispute)
Relief refused
#Accrued leave days
Not specifically pleaded or proved
Service pay
Awarded NIL in the final orders without stated reasons
Balance of the Kshs 1,922,923.00 claimed
Only Kshs 601,932 awarded; claims not proved were rejected
Costs
The Claimant's claim is allowed with costs (costs of the suit to the Claimant).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is the court's view that these elements clearly demonstrate that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondents and not an Independent Consultant.
the Respondents not having taken her through any form of disciplinary process, nor given reasons for the termination, renders the termination both substantively and procedurally unfair.
In conclusion the Claimant's claim is hereby allowed with costs as follows:
vii. The Respondent to issue certificate of service to the Claimant.
viii. TOTAL= Kshs. 601,932
Issues in the judgment
#Salary arrears figure differs between reasoning and orders
Hearing and submissions dates (2025-2026) postdate the cause number year 2022 by over three years
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elizabeth Ngina Mutisya v Arrow Motors Group East Africa Limited & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E407 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2507/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.