Lorna v Cofftea Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E438 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 810 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court ruled an agency worker was unfairly fired and awarded her over KShs. 117,000 from the agency, not the client company she served.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of employment relationship
Employment relationship proved against the 2nd Respondent (Tradco Services) which issued the written contract; claim against 1st Respondent (Cofftea) not proved.
The written contract, employee checklist, personal information and clearance documents were all issued by Tradco Services, which recruited, paid and cleared the claimant. Deployment to render merchandising services to Cofftea did not, without more, establish Cofftea as a contractual employer; no contract between the claimant and Cofftea was produced and Cofftea's independent exercise of employer powers was not demonstrated.
Substantive fairness of termination
Termination substantively unfair; Respondents failed to prove reasons under sections 43 and 45.
The claimant established employment, early termination before contractual expiry, and being sent away on return from an authorised trip. Once fairness was challenged, the burden shifted to the employer to justify the termination. No termination letter, notice to show cause, warning or disciplinary record was produced, and the Respondents tendered no evidence.
Procedural fairness
Termination procedurally unfair; no hearing, and claimant was not a probationary employee.
The claimant was neither informed of allegations nor given a chance to respond; the clearance form evidenced exit, not a disciplinary hearing. With nine months served and no evidence of an extended probation beyond the three-month contractual period, section 41 safeguards applied. The exclusion of probationary employees under section 42(1) was also noted to be constitutionally suspect per Kibuchi.
Quantum of remedies
Awards computed on proved salary of KShs. 21,000; four months' compensation for unfair termination; leave pay KShs. 12,721.15; notice pay KShs. 21,000.
The pleaded salary of KShs. 33,360 conflicted with the claimant's own written contract providing KShs. 21,000 gross, with no proof of variation, so the contractual figure governed. Compensation was limited to four months reflecting the four months remaining on the fixed-term contract, short service and abrupt termination. Leave was computed pro-rata at 15.75 days. Public holidays claim failed for want of particulars.
Legal principles established
#- A matter proceeding undefended does not relieve a claimant of the burden of proving the claim.
- Where oral evidence on remuneration conflicts with the claimant's own written contract and no variation is proved, the written figure prevails.
- Rendering services to an agency's client does not of itself make the client the contractual employer.
- Twelve months' compensation under section 49(1)(c) is the statutory maximum, not an automatic award.
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice – KShs. 21,000.00
- 2.Accrued annual leave – KShs. 12,721.15
- 3.Compensation equivalent to four months' gross salary for unfair termination – KShs. 84,000.00 (total KShs. 117,721.15)
- 4.The claim for KShs. 22,240 for public holidays dismissed for want of sufficient proof
- 5.Compensation equivalent to twelve months' salary allowed only to the extent of four months awarded
- 6.The 2nd Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service in accordance with section 51 of the Employment Act
- 7.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit against the 2nd Respondent
- 8.The Claimant's claim against the 1st Respondent, Cofftea Limited, dismissed with no order as to costs
- 9.The monetary award shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court (Employment Act; Memorandum of Claim filed as MCELRC Cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lorna v Cofftea Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E438 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 810 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MCELRC Cause No. E438 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/810/eng@2026-08-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.