Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 2463 of 2012

Ng’ang’a & 4 others v County Government of Kajiado & another (Cause 2463 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1299 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 May 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,118 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

#

Five workers lost their 13-year case against Kajiado County because they had no proof—payslips, ID cards, or NSSF records—of ever being employed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Five former casual workers of the County Council of Kajiado (later County Government of Kajiado) sued in 2012 alleging violation of fair labour rights and breach of contract after the Council terminated casual employees' contracts effective 30 April 2011 following a 2010 staff audit, and later advertised 50 casual vacancies for which the Claimants were unsuccessful. In their Amended Memorandum of Claim (filed February 2018), they sought protection against discrimination and casual treatment, declarations that they were permanent and pensionable employees with their years of service so recognised, an order compelling compliance with occupational safety and health laws, damages for discrimination, and costs. Eight issues were adopted for determination. At the hearing on 17 March 2025, the 1st and 5th Claimants testified that they were employed in 2003 and 2000 respectively, paid per day, and dismissed by phone call in 2018, without formal contracts; the Respondents presented no evidence but denied in their Response that the Claimants were its employees, contending they lacked minimum qualifications. The Court held that although the Employment Act recognises oral contracts and casual employment, an employee without primary evidence may rely on secondary evidence - payroll schedules, job identity cards, NSSF/NHIF statutory records, or oral testimony of a colleague or supervisor - and the Claimants produced none. The Cause was dismissed with no order on costs on 8 May 2025 (Radido Stephen, Judge).

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Claimants are employees of the 1st Respondent, which falls under the National supervision of the 2nd Respondent
  2. 2.Whether, as at the time of filing the suit, the Claimants had been in the employment of the 1st Respondent continually for the stated number of years
  3. 3.Whether by operation of the law the Claimants are permanent employees or term contract employees in terms of section 37 of the Employment Act, 2007
  4. 4.Whether the job description and service terms of the Claimants ought to be reduced into writing in terms of section 35 of the Employment Act, 2007
  5. 5.Whether the Claimants have been discriminated against and deserve protection and compensation, and the quantum
  6. 6.Whether the years worked should be treated as service years in permanent employment with pension and other emoluments
  7. 7.Whether the Respondent should be compelled to comply with laws relating to occupational safety and health for the Claimants
  8. 8.What order should be made as regards costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimants proved an employment relationship with the County Government

Holding

The Claimants failed to prove the employment relationship; the claim was dismissed.

Reasoning

The Employment Act contemplates oral contracts and casual employment, so absence of a written appointment letter is not fatal. An employee may rely on secondary evidence: payroll schedules, job identity cards, statutory records from NSSF or NHIF, or oral testimony of a colleague or supervisor. The two Claimants who testified (the 1st and 5th) admitted no formal contracts were issued but produced no secondary evidence at all. The Respondents presented no evidence but the burden of proof remained on the Claimants, which they did not discharge.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is no formal written contract, an employee may prove the employment relationship through secondary evidence such as payroll schedules, identity cards, statutory records of NSSF/NHIF, or oral testimony of a colleague or supervisor.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause is dismissed with no order on costs.

The bench

#

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

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over disputes relating to employment and labour rights (employment cause under the Employment Act, 2007)

Relief refused

#

Protection against discrimination, casual treatment and denial of proper contracts of service

Claimants failed to prove the employment relationship

p. 9

Declaration that the Claimants are permanent and pensionable employees and recognition of years worked as such

Not proved; no merit in the Cause

p. 9

Damages for discrimination

Claim failed for lack of proof

p. 9

Order compelling compliance with occupational safety and health laws

Claim failed for lack of proof

p. 9

Costs of the suit

Dismissed with no order on costs

p. 9

Costs

No order on costs - each party to bear their 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 secondary evidence can be in the form of payroll schedules, job identity cards or statutory records kept by institutions such as the National Social Security Fund or the National Hospital Insurance Fund.
p. 9Proof of oral employment contracts - secondary evidence
An employee may also rely on the oral testimony of a colleague or supervisor.
p. 9Proof of employment relationship - oral testimony
The Claimants herein did not place before the Court any type of evidence to show that they were in an employment relationship with the County Government.
p. 9Failure of proof
Arising from the above, the Court finds no merit in the Cause and it is dismissed with no order on costs.
p. 9Final orders - dismissal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ng’ang’a & 4 others v County Government of Kajiado & another (Cause 2463 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. 2463 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1299/eng@2025-05-08

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