Namayi v Adtones East Africa Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E247 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2781 (KLR) (8 October 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2781 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS CAUSE E247 OF 2025 BOM MANANI, J OCTOBER 8, 2026 BETWEEN LYDIA EMMAH NAMAYI ....................................................................... CLAIMANT AND ADTONES EAST AFRICA LIMITED ............................................... RESPONDENT RULING Background 1. The Claimant instituted this action through a Memorandum of Claim dated 24th March 2025 alleging that the Respondent hired her services as a Business Development Manager at a salary of Ksh. 220,000.00 per month. She contends that the appointment was communicated to her through the Respondent’s letter dated 30th April 2024. 2. The Claimant has provided a detailed schedule of what she alleges were her tasks. They include: rebuilding the Respondent’s strained client relationships; creating product awareness; maintaining constant communication with clients; generating revenue; executing campaigns; and following up on payments. 3. The Claimant contends that the contract between the parties had a probationary term of three months. She contends that she was to be enrolled in the Respondent’s medical scheme after the lapse of the probationary term. 4. The Claimant alleges that after she completed the probationary term, her contract was conrmed in terms of the letter of oer referred to earlier. Despite this, she avers that the Respondent did not enroll her in the medical scheme. 5. The Claimant alleges that the Respondent unilaterally reduced her salary from Ksh. 220,000.00 to Ksh. 75,000.00. She further alleges that the Respondent wrote to her on 28th November 2024 terminating https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2781/eng@2026-10-08 1
page 1 of 3
her services without prior notice or pay in lieu thereof. She thus contends that the Respondent’s decision to terminate her contract of service was unlawful. 6. The Claimant further alleges that in addition to the agreed salary, the Respondent was to pay her 7% commission on all the business she brought in. However, she alleges that it (the Respondent) did not honour this agreement. Hence this suit. 7. When the Respondent was served with the pleadings in the cause, it led a preliminary objection contending that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The basis of the objection is the contention that there was no employment relationship between the parties. As such and in terms of section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, the Respondent expresses the view that this court is not entitled to adjudicate on the dispute. Analysis 8. A preliminary objection ought to be conned to a pure point of law (Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696). Although a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is presumed to raise a pure point of law, this ceases to be the case when the court is invited to interrogate contested factual matters at the infancy stage of a case in order to determine whether it should assume jurisdiction over a dispute. 9. This case presents precisely the scenario described above. From the Memorandum of Claim on record, the Claimant’s case is that she was an employee of the Respondent. To support her contention, she has presented what appears to be a letter of oer of employment by the Respondent to her. As seen earlier in the ruling, the letter suggests that the Respondent oered the Claimant employment in the position of Business Development Manager at a monthly salary of Ksh. 220,000.00. 10. There is also preliminary material which purports to be communication from the Respondent informing the Claimant that her probationary term was not going to be renewed after it lapsed at the close of November 2024. The communication was purportedly sent to the Claimant on 28th November 2024. 11. In the submissions by counsel for the Respondent in support of the preliminary objection, he states that the parties were engaged in an independent contractor relationship. However, no preliminary material are presented to back this contention. 12. Clearly, what emerges is that there is controversy between the parties regarding whether or not they had an employment relationship. This renders the question whether the parties had an employment or independent contractor relationship a matter for determination after the court has evaluated the evidence which they will present on the matter to support their contrasting views on the subject. 13. That being the case, the court cannot, at this stage, determine with any degree of certainty, whether the parties had an employment or independent contractor relationship. It (the court) cannot resolve the matter as a preliminary point of law as that will certainly require it to interrogate contested facts on the subject at the infancy stage of the case. That will be inappropriate as it will be tantamount to determining a contested fact without examining the evidence on it through a full trial. Determination 14. The upshot is that the court arrives at the conclusion that the preliminary objection dated 28th November 2025 is devoid of merit. 15. As such, the objection is dismissed with costs to the Claimant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2781/eng@2026-10-08 2
page 2 of 3
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondent ORDER In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. B. O. M MANANI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2781/eng@2026-10-08 3
page 3 of 3