Muriki v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 2 others (Cause 853 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 4146 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a Methodist Church Minister is not an employee of the Church's central organs, so his Kshs 3.1 million claim failed.
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 employed by the Respondents
- 2.Whether his contract was terminated unfairly or at all by the Respondents
- 3.Whether he merits the remedies pleaded against the Respondents
Key legal issues
#Whether a church Minister is an employee of the central church organs (Trustees, Conference, Synods)
No - the Claimant did not establish employment by the Respondents; if anyone, his employer was M C K Kangeta Circuit, which controlled his work, paid his stipends and rejected him.
The Court applied the control test and examined the documents exhibited: working programs, a cheque issued by the Circuit, and Circuit bank statements. The meetings leading to his removal were convened by Circuit committees. The standing orders placed stipend payment and the right to retain or reject Ministers with Circuits, not with the named Respondents, who showed no involvement in his ministry.
Whether the termination was unfair
The unfair termination claim failed because no employment relationship with the Respondents was proved; the Claimant also declined to submit to the Pastoral Advisory Committee process after rejection by his Circuit.
Since the Respondents were found not to be the employer, unfair termination against them could not succeed. Further, the Claimant was invited to a Pastoral Advisory Committee meeting but did not attend, claiming not to recall the invitation, which the Court found undermined his credibility.
Pension and stipend arrears
Both prayers failed - the Superintendent Minister bore responsibility for pension remittance under the standing orders, and the arrears were unquantified and undocumented.
The Claimant, as Superintendent Minister, was responsible under the standing orders for monthly pension contribution and remittance, so he could not shift that duty to the Respondents. The stipend arrears were neither shown enforceable against the Respondents nor supported by documents establishing the pleaded amounts.
Counterclaim for return of Church property
The counterclaim failed for want of evidence.
The Respondents opted not to give evidence and adduced nothing to show the Claimant retained any Church property, so the counterclaim lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- Ministers of the Methodist Church are not employees of the Trustees, Conference or Synods; the Circuit to which a Minister is stationed is responsible for stipends and may retain or reject the Minister.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined.
- 2.The counterclaim is declined.
- 3.No order on the 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 over employment claims (Employment Act) - not expressly cited in judgment
Relief refused
#Compensation for unfair termination, salary/stipend arrears and pension dues (Kshs 3,127,505.15)
Claimant failed to establish an employee-employer relationship with the Respondents and produced no documentary support for the amounts claimed
Pension dues
Standing orders made the Superintendent Minister responsible for pension remittance
Costs
No order on costs
Costs
No order on the 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 Claimant has not established that he was employed by any, or all, of the Organs / Institutions named as Respondents above.
If he was an Employee of any colour, shade or hue, he would in the view of the Court be deemed to be, an Employee of M C K Kangeta Circuit.
The Claim is declined. The counterclaim is declined. No order on the costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriki v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 2 others (Cause 853 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 4146 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4146/eng@2022-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.