Kenya Engineering Workers Union v East Africa Cables Limited (Cause E492 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1538 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a fixed term contract that simply expires on its stated end date is not an unfair termination, so no compensation is owed.
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 fixed term contracts of the grievants were legal and binding
- 2.What was the rightful remuneration of the grievants
- 3.Whether termination of the grievants was in line with the parties' CBA and the labour laws
- 4.Whether the prayers sought by the Claimant are merited and grantable
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievants were casual employees entitled to conversion to permanent employment under the CBA
The claim that the grievants worked as casuals from 2007/2008 was not proved; the first contracts show service on contract basis from 2014
The court examined the contracts and found the grievants were first engaged on fixed term contracts from 2014 with definite start and end periods which they accepted and signed. The Claimant produced no evidence of engagement from 2007/2008, so the CBA casuals conversion clause did not apply. The bonus and pay history showed the grievants were paid for periods worked, not that they were permanent employees.
Whether the grievants were unfairly and unprocedurally terminated
The claim of unfair termination is unfounded; the fixed term contracts ended by effluxion of time on 31st July 2018
No termination letter was exhibited by the grievants. The contracts were fixed term with definite start and end dates, the last ending 31st July 2018, and the grievants were issued clearance certificates on that date. Where a fixed term contract simply expires, there is no termination to test for fairness, so remedies for unfair termination are unavailable.
Legal principles established
#- Where fixed term contracts have a definite start and end period which the employee accepts and signs, and the contracts end on the stated date, the contracts end by effluxion of time and there is no unfair termination
- A party alleging unfair termination must exhibit a termination letter
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.No order of costs - each party bears own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Employment Act; Labour Relations Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the terms of service offered to the grievants were against the CBAs and null and void
No evidence produced that the grievants were employed from 2007; first contracts show service on contract basis from 2014
Conversion of the grievants' contracts to permanent employment in line with the CBAs
The grievants accepted and signed fixed term contracts with definite start and end periods
Finding of unfair/unprocedural termination and monetary awards (Kshs 1,138,785 for each grievant) with interest
No termination letter exhibited; contracts ended by effluxion of time
Certificates of service
Remedies sought are not available where the unfair termination claim fails
Costs of the suit
Claim dismissed with no order of costs
Costs
There shall be no order of 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 contracts issued from 2014 were fixed term with a definite start and end period which the greviants accepted and signed against and the last of which ended on 31st July 2018.
What is evident is that their fixed term contracts ended by afiuxion of time and therefore the claim of an unfair termination is unfounded.
I therefore find the claim unsustainable. The same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment appears to blend two different disputes: the Memorandum of Claim pleads unfair termination of casual/fixed contracts and non-payment of CBA benefits, but the submissions and evidence on both sides are framed around redundancy (notices to the Labour Office, selection criteria, terminal dues on redundancy), which the court never squarely addresses before dismissing the claim
The Respondent's witness refers to the Claimant's employment 'terminated on account of redundancy' and a letter dated 28th October 2021 to the labour office, yet the grievants' contracts are pleaded as ending by expiry on 31st July 2018 - a three-year discrepancy the judgment does not reconcile
The memorandum claims the union sues for two grievants (Kyalo Kilonzi and Dancum Gatuguta), but parts of the record (submissions and evidence) refer to a single claimant whose dues were paid, and a third name 'Gatuguta Chege' appears for the 2nd grievant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v East Africa Cables Limited (Cause E492 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1538/eng@2025-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.