Akrim v Mobile Consultations Africa Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E055 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1276 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a Kshs.6.7 million unfair termination claim because the claimant could not prove she was actually an employee rather than a consultant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the parties
- 2.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally fair
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant transitioned from independent contractor to employee
No evidence of an employment relationship; both parties admitted an independent consultancy existed
The court noted both parties failed to produce the consultancy agreement, and the Claimant relied on NSSF, NHIF and payslip documents. The NSSF statement showed voluntary contributions from 21/11/2019 continuing even after termination, with no employer contribution; the NHIF statement was individual and named no employer; the payslip lacked NHIF and NSSF numbers. The documentary evidence contradicted the pleaded transition to employment in July 2020.
Whether the termination was unfair and procedurally improper
The question does not arise in the absence of an employment relationship, and without the consultancy agreement the court cannot determine whether termination of the consultancy was proper
Since no employment relationship was established, wrongful/unfair termination under the Employment Act could not lie. The respondents admitted terminating the engagement under the termination clause of the consultancy relationship, but neither party produced the consultancy agreement itself, leaving the court unable to assess whether the termination complied with its terms.
Whether the court has jurisdiction over the claim
The claim, premised on an employment relationship, was not proved; the co-founder/partnership issue was earlier found to be outside the court's jurisdiction
The Respondent argued under Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act that the court's jurisdiction is confined to employment relationships. The court found no employment relationship existed, and the co-founder/partnership claim had already been determined in a ruling of 17th February 2023 as not triable before the court for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- In determining the existence of an employment relationship, the court looks beyond the terminology used by the parties to the entire spectrum of facts and circumstances (as relied on from Maurice Oduor Okech vs Chequered Flag Limited, cited by the Claimant).
- Statutory deductions records (NSSF/NHIF) that are voluntary, individual, uncertified or unattributed to an employer cannot prove an employment contract.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed for want of proof
- 2.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unfair and unlawful
No employment relationship was proved; wrongful termination does not arise
Terminal dues and compensatory damages of Kshs.6,672,541.66
Claim not proved
Orders protecting co-founder status, work permit and immigration status, and mandatory recommendation letters
Flow from the claim which was dismissed; co-founder/partnership issue earlier held outside the court's jurisdiction
Costs
There will be no order of 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.
In the circumstances, I find the claim is not proved and stands dismissed. There will be no order of costs.
This court therefore determines that there is no evidence that the claimant was an employee of the respondent. The issue of wrongful termination does not therefore exist.
The two documents cannot therefore be relied upon to determine that there existed an employment contract between the claimant and respondent save what is admitted by both that there was an independent consultancy between the claimant and respondent.
In absence of consultancy agreement, this court is therefore not in a position to determine whether the termination of the same was properly done or not.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains internal inconsistencies in dates and gender references regarding the Claimant (e.g. engagement described as November 2019 in one place but contract 'terminated on 21st November 2019' in testimony; NSSF statement dates described as contradictory by the court itself)
The case number of the suit is not stated in the judgment text; only the Amended Memorandum of Claim date appears
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akrim v Mobile Consultations Africa Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E055 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1276 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Amended Memorandum of Claim dated 19th February 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1276/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.