Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Appeal No. E020 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2642 (KLR)

Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Kaironge Wanyoike

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nyeri
25 September 2026
3,144 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 ruled a casual worker only becomes a permanent employee after continuous work totalling at least one month, not scattered seasonal stints.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent claimed he was employed by the Appellant as a supervisor until 15th March 2020, when he was verbally sent home and never recalled, without notice to show cause or a disciplinary hearing. He sought Kshs. 402,000.00 comprising one month's salary in lieu of notice, untaken leave for 27 years, compensation for unfair termination, a declaration, costs and interest. The Appellant denied the employment relationship, contended the Respondent worked intermittently as a casual employee during coffee-pruning seasons between 2012 and 2019, and raised limitation. The Trial Magistrate entered judgment for the Respondent, finding his casual employment had converted into term employment by operation of Section 37 of the Employment Act. On appeal, the ELRC at Nyeri, per Stella Rutto J, re-evaluated the muster rolls produced by the Appellant covering December 2011 to August 2019, which showed sporadic engagements of 7 to 21 days. The court held that although some engagements exceeded 24 hours, the evidence did not demonstrate continuous work aggregating to not less than one month as required for conversion under Section 37. The Trial Magistrate therefore erred; the unfair termination issue became moot and the reliefs awarded, including house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments and unpaid overtime, were unsustainable. The appeal succeeded: the Trial Court's judgment was set aside in its entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's casual engagement converted into a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act

Holding

The Trial Magistrate erred; the muster rolls did not demonstrate continuous work aggregating to one month, so no conversion occurred and Section 35(1)(c) did not apply

Reasoning

The court re-evaluated the muster rolls covering December 2011 to August 2019, which showed sporadic engagements of 7 to 21 days per season. Although some engagements exceeded 24 hours, the statutory threshold of continuous work aggregating to not less than one month was not met. Conversion under Section 37 therefore did not occur, and the statutory protections of the Employment Act were not triggered.

p. 15
02

Whether the Respondent's employment was unfairly terminated and whether the reliefs awarded were sustainable

Holding

The unfair termination issue became moot given the finding on conversion, and the reliefs awarded by the Trial Court were set aside

Reasoning

Having found no conversion to a term contract, the premise of the unfair termination claim collapsed. The court held the second issue moot and unsustainable, setting aside the awards for house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments and unpaid overtime, and dismissing the entire claim.

p. 16
03

Preliminary issue: whether the Respondent's alleged failure to testify before the Trial Court was fatal

Holding

The issue did not arise because the record showed the Respondent testified on 21st January 2025, separately from other related respondents

Reasoning

Both parties had submitted that the Respondent did not testify, but the court found on the record that he did testify on 21st January 2025 separately from the other respondents in related matters. The ground of appeal and submissions on non-appearance were therefore misconceived and required no determination.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Casual employment converts to a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act only where the employee works continuously for a period aggregating to not less than one month, or performs work not reasonably expected to be completed within three months or more
  • 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 on credibility of witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 23rd April 2025 is set aside in its entirety
  2. 2.Substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its own costs
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Murang'a (ELRC)
Murang'a MCELRC Cause No. 006 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the subordinate court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court's appellate jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Kaironge Wanyoike", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E020 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2642/eng@2026-09-25

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