Okaka v Tulsi Construction Ltd
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a Kshs. 5.3 million claim because the claimant was a consultant, not an employee, so the court had no jurisdiction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Claimant's engagement was unfairly terminated
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought, particularly the special damages of Kshs. 5,310,000
Key legal issues
#Existence of an employment relationship
The claimant was a consultant, not an employee; the contract consistently described him as a consultant paid a monthly consultancy fee on invoicing, and he produced no invoices or proof of employment
The court examined the contract for project management services, noting the claimant was throughout referred to as a consultant, was to submit monthly invoices detailing services performed, and was paid a consultancy fee. He exhibited no invoice, no termination letter, and did not show when the project ended. The court therefore found no employer-employee relationship and no jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the ELRC
Having found no employment relationship, the court held the cause was filed before a court lacking jurisdiction and declined to determine it
Because the dispute was in substance a breach of a consultancy contract rather than a labour dispute, the court held the ELRC lacked jurisdiction and 'downed its tools', dismissing the cause rather than determining the unfair termination and remedies issues.
Legal principles established
#- Where the engagement is documented as a consultancy with fees payable on invoicing and no proof of an employer-employee relationship, the ELRC lacks jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim arising from it
Court orders
#- 1.The cause is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
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 and Labour Relations Court Act (implied); the court found it lacked jurisdiction over what it held was a pure contract claim
Relief refused
#Kshs. 5,310,000 terminal dues and all ancillary reliefs
The court found no employer-employee relationship existed, so it lacked jurisdiction over the contract breach claim
Costs of the suit
Court ordered no costs
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear their 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.
Given the nature of this engagement and given no proof of any employee- employer relationship between the claimant and the respondent, it is my finding that the claimant was never an employee of the respondent
I will down my tools and proceed to dismiss this cause accordingly with no order to costs.
The claimant submitted no such invoice even before this court.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to claimant as 'Ammos Okaka' in title but 'Amos Okaka' in evidence
Stray typographical characters in submissions paragraph
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okaka v Tulsi Construction Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause 201 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2758/eng@2026-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.