Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedAppeal E199 of 2023· [2026] KEELRC 2550 (KLR)

Ciambuba v Neptune Shelters Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 September 2026
6,146 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a cleaner's appeal because she could not prove the management company, not the landlord, was her employer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, formerly a cleaner at Twiga Heights Properties, appealed against the dismissal of her claim by Hon. Hosea Mwangi Nganga (PM) in MC. ELRC No. E736 of 2022, in which the trial court found she had not established an employment relationship with the Respondent, Neptune Shelters Limited. She advanced 22 grounds, condensed by the court into three issues: whether the trial court erred in finding no employer-employee relationship, no unfair termination, and in denying the reliefs sought. Her case was that a management agreement between Twiga Limited and the Respondent transferred or absorbed her employment, that she was supervised and paid Kshs.17,000 monthly by the Respondent, and that the Respondent failed to produce employment records and statutory compliance certificates. The Respondent maintained it was only a management agent paying her at the landlord's instruction from rent collected, and that she admitted being hired by Mr. Patrick Muriga and fired by Mrs. Mary Muriga. Abuodha J applied the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests, noting the management agreement placed cleaning at the landlord's cost and contained no employee takeover clause. The court held the Appellant was under the control and instructions of the landlady, not the Respondent, and affirmed the trial court's findings on all three issues. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Appellant and the Respondent

Holding

No employment relationship existed; the Respondent was merely an agent/management company of the landlord, and the Appellant was hired and fired by the landlord/landlady.

Reasoning

Applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests from Charles Juma Oleng, the court found the Appellant was under the control and instructions of the landlady, not the Respondent. The management agreement placed cleaning at the landlord's cost, contained no employee takeover clause, and payments through the Respondent's account were made at the landlord's instance from rent collected.

p. 11
02

Whether the Appellant was unfairly terminated by the Respondent

Holding

Having found no employment relationship, the court held there was no way the Appellant could have been unfairly terminated by the Respondent.

Reasoning

Unfair termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act presupposes an employment relationship. Since the Appellant was never the Respondent's employee, the trial court's finding that she was not unfairly terminated by the Respondent was correct and was affirmed.

p. 12
03

Whether the Appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

Not entitled; without an established employer-employee relationship all reliefs fail.

Reasoning

The reliefs (notice pay, compensation, severance, leave, public holidays, housing allowance, certificate of service) are all predicated on an employment relationship with the Respondent. That predicate having failed on the evidence, the trial court correctly dismissed the claim and the appeal against that dismissal fails.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • The jurisdiction of the ELRC in employment matters is limited by the existence of an employment relationship as defined in law, which the court must satisfy itself of before proceeding.
  • The burden of proving an employment relationship lies on the claimant; the employer's duty to keep records does not release the claimant from proving their case, including serving a production notice for documents in the employer's possession.
  • Where a management agreement places cleaning at the landlord's cost, cleaners are employed by the landlord, not the management company acting as agent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is found unmerited and is dismissed with costs
On appeal from
Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
MC. ELRC NO. E736 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in an employment dispute (Employment and Labour Relations Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ciambuba v Neptune Shelters Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal E199 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2550/eng@2026-09-22

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