Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided

Mwaniki v AM Trailer Manufacturer Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 3 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3308 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 December 2023
BOByram Ongaya
890 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an unfair termination claim because the worker could not prove an employment relationship existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, represented by Njoki Ngari & Company Advocates, sued the respondent claiming compensation for unfair termination, having surrendered reliefs relating to injuries sustained in a 9 January 2018 gas cylinder explosion at the respondent's Mlolongo workshop. He pleaded employment from January 2012 as a workshop supervisor, non-payment of salary during hospitalization, outstanding hospital bills, and termination without terminal benefits. The respondent denied employment, asserting the claimant was engaged as an independent contractor on a case-by-case basis for welding works, that the company was only incorporated in 2015, and that the claimant was never on its payroll. The respondent also objected to the court's jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Employment Act 2007 and sections 53 and 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act. The sole issue framed was whether the parties were in a contract of service. The court found the claimant's testimony inconsistent with his pleadings: he could not show employment from 2012 (before the respondent's incorporation), produced no contract, could not show terms of service or wages, made no NSSF contributions, and held his own medical cover. The earliest M-pesa payments dated to 2017, consistent with an oral consultancy relationship rather than employment. Judgment was entered for the respondent: the suit was dismissed, each party ordered to bear own costs, and the Deputy Registrar directed to return the case file to the Machakos Court's sub-registry. The judgment was delivered by video-link and in court at Nairobi on 20 December 2023 by Byram Ongaya, Principal Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the parties were in a contract of service (an employment relationship)

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the parties were in a contract of service

Holding

No employment relationship existed; the claimant's testimony was inconsistent with his pleaded case and indicated a consultancy relationship

Reasoning

The claimant pleaded employment from January 2012, but the respondent was incorporated in 2015 and thus could not have employed him from 2012. His own testimony showed the earliest M-pesa payments were in 2017, no NSSF contributions were made, he had his own medical cover, and he could not produce a contract or evidence of terms and wages. The court found the relationship from about 2017 was oral consultancy, not employment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant pleading employment must prove the employment relationship, its terms and applicable wages; without proof of a contract of service, claims for unfair termination cannot stand

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the claimant for dismissal of the suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs
  3. 3.The Deputy Registrar to forthwith return the case file to the Machakos Court's sub-registry

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

BO
Byram OngayaPrincipal Judge
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007; respondent challenged jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Employment Act 2007 and sections 53 and 52(2) of the Work Injury Benefits Act

Relief refused

#

Compensation for unfair termination

No employment relationship was established; the claimant failed to prove he was an employee

p. 2

Costs

Each party to bear own costs of the suit

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’s testimony was inconsistent with his pleaded case. He has failed to show that the respondent employed him from 2012 as pleaded or on any other date.
p. 2burden of proving employment relationship
The Court returns that there being no employment relationship, the alleged unfair termination and compensation can not be justified at all.
p. 2consequence of absence of contract of service
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the respondent against the claimant for: a. dismissal of the suit; b. each party to bear own costs
p. 3final orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwaniki v AM Trailer Manufacturer Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 3 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3308/eng@2023-12-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.