Daniel Mwanzia Mutua v Kenya Builders & Concrete Co. Limited [2021] KEELRC 1448 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Long-serving 'casual' workers in Kenya gain full Employment Act protections, but courts will reject inflated terminal dues claims lacking evidence.
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 claimant was a casual employee or an employee protected under section 37 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was lawful and with notice
- 3.What terminal dues are payable: notice pay, house allowance, NSSF contributions, leave pay, compensation and certificate of service
Key legal issues
#Status of the claimant: casual or protected employee
The claimant was not a casual employee but was protected under section 37 of the Employment Act, having worked continuously and been issued contracts and warning letters
The court examined the respondent's payment records showing continuous work over the years including December 2015, January and February 2016. The existence of a monthly contract (August 2012) and issuance of warning letters for poor performance showed the claimant was in regular and continuous service, inconsistent with casual employment. Section 37 therefore applied, entitling him to statutory protections.
Lawfulness of termination
Termination without notice or reasons was unfair, but the payment for 7 days in February 2016 addressed the notice pay due; compensation of one month's gross pay awarded
Section 35 requires notice and sections 43 and 45 require valid reasons for termination. None were given. However, since the respondent paid the claimant for 7 days worked in February 2016, that payment satisfied the notice pay entitlement. The court therefore awarded only one month's gross pay as compensation under the unfair termination remedy.
Legal principles established
#- Casual employment under the Employment Act is permitted but where an employee works continuously for periods aggregating one month or more, section 37 protects them and they enjoy the rights and benefits under the Act
- Issuance of warnings and engagement under a contract do not define a casual employee; such features indicate regular continuous employment
- Termination of employment must be with notice under section 35 and for valid reasons under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for compensation at Ksh.16,983.20
- 2.A certificate of service to be issued in accordance with section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 3.Each party to pay 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
Relief refused
#House allowance for 91 months of Ksh.203,798.40
The daily wage was inclusive of house allowance under the Wage Orders; claiming beyond it would be unjust enrichment
NSSF contributions of Ksh.4,800
NSSF contributions are due to the statutory body, not the employee
Leave pay for 4 years of Ksh.54,868.80
Records showed the claimant was absent up to seven days in a given month
Notice pay of Ksh.16,983.20 as a separate head
Payment of 7 days' wages in February 2016 adequately addressed notice pay
Costs
Each party shall pay 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.
Accordingly, judgement is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent for compensation at Ksh.16,983.20; a certificate of service shall be issued in accordance with section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007; and each party shall pay own costs.
Such components of employment under a contract and issuance of warnings do not define a casual employee. He was covered under section 37 of the Act.
Termination of employment must be with notice pursuant to section 35 of the Act and for given reasons are required under section 43 read together with section 45 of the Act.
under the Wage Orders such wage was inclusive of a house allowance and to claim outside of such amount would amount to unjust enrichment
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates: the claimant is stated to have worked until 2nd February 2016 in the opening paragraphs, yet his cross-examination testimony records him at work on 29th February 2016, a date that did not exist in 2016 (not a leap year); the respondent also pleads 29th February 2016 as the last working day
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nazmudin Habib Kassam Kurji v Frank Logistics Limited & 9 others [2020] KEELC 93 (KLR)[2020] KEELC 93 (KLR)30 Sept 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Mwanzia Mutua v Kenya Builders & Concrete Co. Limited [2021] KEELRC 1448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 1998 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1448/eng@2021-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.