Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Margaret Kanyiva Mugo
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that casual farm work with gaps does not automatically become permanent employment, dismissing a worker's Kshs 772,200 award.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What was the legal consequence of the Respondent's failure to appear before the Court and testify in support of her case?
- 2.Depending on the determination in (a), whether the Trial Court erred in finding that the Respondent's engagement as a casual employee had automatically converted into a term contract
- 3.Subject to the determination of issue (a), whether the Respondent's employment was unfairly terminated
- 4.Subject to the determination of issue (b), whether the reliefs awarded to the Respondent by the Trial Court are sustainable in law
Key legal issues
#Consequence of the Respondent's failure to personally testify
Not fatal to her claim, because the Appellant's counsel consented to three witnesses testifying on behalf of the related Respondents and its own witness's testimony was adopted across the series.
The record showed a consent of 24th October 2023 whereby three witnesses would testify for the other Respondents in the series, and the Appellant's single witness was likewise adopted for all Respondents. Having participated in and consented to that mode of presentation, the Appellant could not resile from it and argue the failure to testify was fatal; that contention was an afterthought.
Conversion of casual employment into a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act
The Trial Magistrate erred: the evidence did not show continuous work aggregating to not less than one month, so no conversion occurred and Section 35(1)(c) did not apply.
The muster rolls showed sporadic engagements (e.g. 28 days in January 2012; 7, 9, 13 and 7 days in late 2018) with gaps. Section 37 requires continuous working days aggregating to the equivalent of not less than one month, or work not reasonably completable within three months. The evidence did not demonstrate such continuity, so the casual engagement was not converted into a term contract.
Unfair termination and sustainability of the reliefs awarded
The unfair-termination issue became moot once conversion failed, and all reliefs awarded by the Trial Court were set aside.
Having found no conversion into a term contract, the statutory protections under the Employment Act did not attach, so the question whether termination was unfair did not fall for consideration. The reliefs premised on term employment - notice pay, house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments and compensation - could not stand and were set aside.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court must reconsider and re-evaluate the entire evidence and draw its own conclusions, while deferring to the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses it saw and heard.
- Casual employment converts to a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act only where the employee works continuously for a period aggregating not less than one month, or performs work not reasonably completable within three months or more.
- A party who consented to an agreed mode of presenting evidence cannot later contend that a co-party's failure to personally testify was fatal to the claim.
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 23rd April 2025 is set aside in its entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Murang'a (Murang'a MCELRC Cause No. 14 of 2020)
- Murang'a MCELRC Cause No. 14 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#All reliefs awarded by the Trial Court (notice pay, unpaid house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments, compensation for unfair termination)
The Respondent's engagement was not converted into a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act, so the reliefs could not be sustained
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
In the final analysis, the Appeal succeeds. Accordingly, the Judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 23rd April 2025 is hereby set aside in its entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Section 37 of the Employment Act contemplates the conversion of casual employment into a regular term contract where an employee works continuously for a period aggregating to not less than one (1) month, or performs work which cannot reasonably be expected to be completed within a period of three (3) months or more.
As this is a first appeal, this Court is obligated to reconsider, re-evaluate, and re-analyse the entire evidence on record, together with the impugned Judgment, and to draw its own independent conclusions.
this Court finds that the Respondent's failure to testify personally in support of her case was not fatal to her claim.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date appears to contain a typographical year error
Gender pronoun inconsistency regarding the Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Margaret Kanyiva Mugo", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E018 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2625/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.