Ahmed & 9 others v Lamu Water Sewarage Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 522 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed employees' Kshs 5.4M claim, ruling labour officer recommendations don't bind courts, and the employees are actually still employed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the tabulation and calculation done by the labour officer as regards the claimants' dues is proper and in accordance with the law and should be adopted as the judgment of the court
- 2.The legality of the labour officer's recommendations, i.e. whether they are binding on the court
Key legal issues
#Whether the labour officer's recommendations are binding and adoptable as a judgment of the court
They are not binding; the court may look at them but is not bound by them, and no statutory provision empowers the labour officer to pass binding recommendations.
The court held that the claimants misapprehended the legal nature of the labour officer's recommendations under the Employment Act. No provision vests the labour officer with judicial or quasi-judicial powers to issue recommendations that bind the court or must be adopted. Consequently, the claim framed solely for adoption of the recommendations was misconceived and could not succeed.
The status of the claimants' employment terms
The claimants transitioned from fixed-term contracts to permanent and pensionable terms upon accepting the offer letters; those P&P terms have never been terminated and the claimants remain lawful employees.
The court found no evidence the claimants influenced issuance of the P&P letters. Acceptance of the offer letters ended the fixed-term contracts, so a notice of expiry of contract could not lawfully terminate the P&P terms. The P&P contracts have never been terminated lawfully or otherwise, meaning the claimants are still employees until proper lawful termination is effected.
Whether the case involved unfair or unlawful termination
No; as pleaded, the claim sought adoption of the labour officer's recommendations, not a finding of unfair or unlawful termination, so authorities on fixed-term contracts and Section 45 were inapplicable.
The court distinguished the claim from an unfair termination claim, noting the claimants did not lay the basis of their claims as lodged before the labour officer and did not allege dismissal. Authorities cited on fixed-term contracts were therefore irrelevant to the particular claim.
Legal principles established
#- Labour officer's recommendations in termination matters are not a binding judgment or order capable of being adopted and enforced by the court as an award against an employer; the court may consider them but is not bound by them.
- Upon receipt and acceptance of letters of offer of appointment on permanent and pensionable terms, employees on fixed-term or temporary contracts transition to P&P employment and cease being fixed-term employees.
- Even if irregularly issued, P&P appointment letters create a legitimate expectation and cannot be lawfully withdrawn by a document titled Notice of expiry of contract.
Court orders
#- 1.The Memorandum of Claim dated 19th April 2024 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act; first-instance employment claim before the magistrates' court
Relief refused
#Adoption of the labour officer's recommendations (letter dated 9/8/2023) as judgment of the court and payment of Kshs. 5,389,281
No legal provision vests the labour officer with judicial or quasi-judicial powers to pass a binding recommendation capable of adoption as an award
Interest from 9/8/2023 and costs of the claim
Claim dismissed in its entirety; costs withheld given the subsisting employment relationship
Costs
No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own costs, in view of the subsisting employment relationship
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.
The Memorandum of Claim dated 19th April 2024 is nonetheless dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs in view of the findings herein.
I concur with the submission by the respondent that the Labour Officer recommendations are not a binding judgment, or order capable of being adopted and enforced by this court as an award against an employer.
It is my finding that the P&P employment terms of all claimants have never been terminated.
The letters had created a legitimate expectation on part of the claimants.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated '26th day of June 2026', an apparently erroneous future date.
Judgment refers inconsistently to the labour officer's letter as dated 4/8/2023 and 9/8/2023.
Court's own records: P.W. Wasike signs as 'Principal Magistrate' though the rank code expected is RM/PM; recorded as printed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ahmed & 9 others v Lamu Water Sewarage Co. Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 522 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Memorandum of Claim dated 19th April 2024 (Lamu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/522/eng@2026-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.