Odhiambo v Fast-Track Management Consultants Limited (Appeal E188 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that renewed fixed-term contracts never become permanent jobs, and an employee who stops showing up terminates their own contract.
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 trial court erred in finding that the Appellant was engaged on fixed term contracts and not employed continuously as a machine operator to assume permanent employment.
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Appellant's termination by the Respondent was procedural hence dismissing the suit.
- 3.Whether the trial court erred in not awarding the terminal dues claimed by the Appellant.
Key legal issues
#Whether continuous fixed term contracts assumed permanency
The court agreed with the trial court that the Appellant was on three-month fixed term contracts; although the contracts were renewed continuously, they remained fixed term and could not convert to permanent employment, as only casual employment is convertible under section 37 of the Employment Act.
The court found the Appellant signed successive fixed term contracts with start and end dates and never objected to the nature of the engagement. Relying on section 10(3)(c) of the Employment Act and Krystalline Salt and East Africa Sea Food, it held fixed term contracts are lawful and self-executing, and never assume permanency through renewal.
Whether the Appellant was unfairly terminated
The Appellant failed to prove that a termination occurred at all; the evidence showed he last worked on 22nd October, 2019, absented himself, and wrote a demand letter the following day. He was held to have terminated his own contract by desertion, so the termination was procedural.
Pay slips showed payment for 17th and 18th October and for 22nd October, contradicting the alleged termination date of 17th October 2019. There was no official communication of termination. Given his habit of occasional absence under daily-rate pay, the Respondent had no opportunity to initiate disciplinary action, and the rushed sequence suggested stage-management.
Whether terminal dues were payable
The claim for terminal dues did not arise given the findings on the contract type and mode of separation.
Having held that the Appellant was engaged on fixed term contracts and that he procedurally terminated his own contract by deserting, the court found no basis for the terminal dues claimed, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A fixed term contract is a lawful form of employment and cannot assume permanency merely because it has been renewed over time; only casual employment is capable of conversion to permanency under section 37 of the Employment Act.
- An employee bears the burden under section 47(5) of the Employment Act to first prove that a termination occurred before the question of its fairness arises.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- 2.It is so ordered.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Subordinate court (ELRC magistrates' court), Honourable Wendy K. Micheni
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment (Employment and Labour Relations Court, Appeals Division)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment dismissing the Claimant's suit
The appeal was found to be without merit; the trial court correctly found the Appellant was on fixed term contracts and that he terminated his own contract by desertion.
Terminal dues claimed by the Appellant
Having found the Appellant was on fixed term contracts and not unfairly terminated, the claim for terminal dues did not arise.
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
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.
From the foregoing it is deducible that a fixed term contract is a lawful form of employment and cannot assume permanency just because it has been renewed over time. The Employment Act under section 37 only recognizes casual employment as a form of employment which is capable of conversion to permanency and not fixed term contract.
This court agrees with the trial court that the termination was procedural as the Appellant terminated his own contract.
In conclusion, the appeal is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The party names are not stated in the judgment; only 'Appellant' and 'Respondent' appear, though the Respondent appears to be an outsourcing company serving Bata Shoe Company.
Inconsistent case number cited for Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Limited (301 of 2015 in Appellant's submissions; 310 of 2015 in Respondent's submissions).
Contradictory dates on which the Appellant last reported to work: the court records the Respondent as alleging he reported late on 22nd October 2019, while the Respondent's witness alleged he reported on 21st October 2019.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo v Fast-Track Management Consultants Limited (Appeal E188 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Appeal against Judgment delivered on 29th September, 2023 in ELRC subordinate court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1392/eng@2025-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.