Kazungu Ngari Yaa v Mistry V. Naran Mulji & Co [2018] KEELRC 464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a former worker Kshs. 140,883 after ruling his employer wrongly treated him as a casual employee despite 25 years of service.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the Claimant - casual or regular employee
The Respondent's characterization of the Claimant as a casual employee after 25 years of service was improper; the monthly rate of Kshs. 9,000 was supported by pay slips
The Respondent claimed the Claimant earned Kshs. 200/300 daily as a casual. The Claimant computed Kshs. 300 by 30 days to arrive at Kshs. 9,000 monthly, a figure supported by pay slips exhibited by the Claimant and not discounted by the Respondent's vouchers. Given his long service, casual characterization was a serious omission by the Respondent.
Determination under Rule 21 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016 on the record
The Court re-granted the same judgment as the set-aside ex parte judgment, as neither party placed materially different material before it
After the ex parte judgment was set aside by consent, the Claimant gave incoherent evidence and offered nothing new, while the Respondent made a general denial unsupported by its payment vouchers. Negotiations for settlement failed. On the material before it, the Court was persuaded to grant the same judgment in favour of the Claimant as was earlier granted.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who has worked for a long period cannot properly be characterized as a casual employee, and failure to pay recognition and social security entitlements is a serious omission by the employer
- Where no new evidence, pleadings or submissions are placed before the Court after an ex parte judgment is set aside, the Court may re-grant the same judgment on the material on record
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant 1 month wages in lieu of notice at Kshs. 9,000; 6 days' wages for work done in August 2011 at Kshs. 2,076; and service pay at Kshs. 129,807- total Kshs. 140,883
- 2.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court [Procedure] Rules 2016, Rule 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kazungu Ngari Yaa v Mistry V. Naran Mulji & Co [2018] KEELRC 464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/464/eng@2018-12-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.