Kalume v Wakbar (Cause E358 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court dismissed a househelp's unfair termination claim because she could not prove she was terminated or continuously employed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of employment relationship
An employment relationship existed; the Respondent and his spouse admitted the Claimant rendered domestic services for remuneration over time
The court applied ss.107 and 109 of the Evidence Act on burden of proof. Although the Respondent denied an employment relationship, both the Respondent and his spouse admitted that the Claimant worked at the household, performed chores, was paid, and was called repeatedly over a period. The dispute was therefore the nature of the engagement, not whether she worked. Domestic work is recognized as employment under the Employment Act.
Casual labourer versus regular employee
The Claimant failed to prove continuous employment or a monthly salary of Kshs. 10,000; the engagement was informal and intermittent
The Claimant produced no payment records, mobile money statements, attendance or leave records, did not testify, and was not cross-examined. The Respondent's uncontroverted witness statements described intermittent engagement dependent on household need. The court found the balance of probabilities favoured the Respondent's account of informal, intermittent services rather than continuous monthly employment.
Proof of termination and unfair termination
Termination was not proved; the unfair termination claim necessarily failed
The only evidence of termination was the alleged statement by a security guard, for whom no statement, affidavit or testimony was tendered, and the Claimant did not testify to subject her account to cross-examination. The Respondent's witnesses said the Claimant ceased offering services in December 2024. Without proof of termination under s.47(5) of the Employment Act, ss.41, 43 and 45 could not be engaged.
Legal principles established
#- The party alleging employment bears the initial burden of proving the employment relationship before the burden shifts
- Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act on unfair termination become operative only upon proof of both employment and termination
- Domestic work is specifically recognized as employment under the Employment Act and the Regulation of Wages (General) Orders
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
- 3.Interest is declined
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations jurisdiction (Employment Act); matter proceeded under Rule 59 by documentary evidence and written submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kalume v Wakbar (Cause E358 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/151/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.