Alfred Langat v Carzan Flowers (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 974 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that refusing to renew a fixed-term contract isn't unfair termination, but the worker still won an underpayment claim.
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 non-renewal of the claimant's fixed term contract amounted to unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation and notice pay
- 3.Whether the claimant was paid his annual leave or leave in lieu
- 4.Whether the claimant was underpaid relative to the applicable Wage Orders
Key legal issues
#Whether non-renewal of a fixed term contract is unfair termination
No. The two 6-month contracts were lawful under section 10(3)(c) of the Employment Act, ended on their terms, and non-renewal gave rise to no claim for compensation or notice pay.
The court found the respondent filed two contracts of employment each for 6 months with stated start and end dates. Section 10(3)(c) permits fixed-term engagement. Because the contracts ended by effluxion of time and in accordance with the agreed terms, employment ended lawfully. Non-renewal was a matter within the respondent's discretion and did not attract sections 43 and 45 remedies.
Whether the claimant was underpaid contrary to the applicable Wage Orders
Yes. The claimant was underpaid Ksh.1,161 per month for 10 months and Ksh.535 per month for 2 months, totalling Ksh.12,680.
The respondent, an agricultural employer at Rongai, was bound by the Regulation of Wages (Agricultural Industry) (Amendment) Order, 2013 (Legal Notice No.196 of 30th July, 2013) under which a security guard's basic wage was Ksh.6,606. Accepting the claimant's evidence of Ksh.5,445 per month (later Ksh.6,071), the court computed underpayments of Ksh.11,610 plus Ksh.1,070.
Whether annual leave pay was due
No. The claimant accrued 0.75 days per month (18 days over 12 months) but was actually paid for 24 leave days, a benefit exceeding the statutory minimum.
Section 28(2) provides 0.75 days of leave per month worked. The contract offered 1.92 leave days per month and the last pay slip included leave pay for 24 days. Having been paid beyond his entitlement, the claim for further annual leave pay failed.
Legal principles established
#- Non-renewal of a lawful fixed term contract that ends on its own terms does not constitute unfair termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- The employer may offer employment on fixed terms under section 10(3)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007, and such contracts end on their stated terms
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant on underpayments at Ksh.12,680
- 2.All other claims dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment dispute)
Relief refused
#Compensation for unfair termination (12 months' gross pay) and notice pay
Employment ended lawfully by lapse of the fixed term contracts; non-renewal is not unfair termination
Claim for annual leave pay of 21 days
The claimant was already paid leave days at 2 days per month (24 days), exceeding his statutory entitlement
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs.
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 non-renewal of the fixed term contract does not result in unfair termination of employment under section 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 to justify a claim for compensation of notice pay.
The contracts issued to the claimant for 6 months each are therefore lawful and ended on their terms.
Accordingly, judgement is entered for the claimant and awarded underpayments at ksh.12, 680. Other claims are hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment inconsistently refers to the claimant's monthly wage at some points (e.g. 'Ksh.10,116.15' in the relief sought vs Ksh.5,445/6,071 in testimony) and contains typographical errors in figures such as 'Ksh.121,3939.80'
Typographical error in the second contract period ('renewed for 6 months from 16 th November, 201 16th May, 2014')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alfred Langat v Carzan Flowers (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 974 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 29 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/974/eng@2020-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.