Bore & 2 others v Jubilee Party & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E917 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1707 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that Jubilee Party wrongly treated three staff members as consultants and must pay each Kshs. 1,050,000 for unfair termination.
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 claimants were employees of the respondents and if so,
- 2.Whether they were terminated fairly and justly.
- 3.Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants were employees of the 1st Respondent or independent consultants
The court found the claimants were employees, the case being uncontroverted as the respondents called no evidence.
The claimants produced bank statements showing periodic monthly payments of Kshs. 300,000 which they said was salary. Although there were no employment letters or payslips, the respondents denied employment but chose not to adduce any evidence, leaving the claimants' case uncontroverted. The court accepted the employment relationship and found unfair termination proved.
Whether the termination was fair and just
The termination was unfair, entitling each claimant to compensation.
The claimants, characterised by the respondents as consultants but held to be employees, were terminated via 'restructuring' letters with only an ex-gratia payment of one month's fees. No evidence was tendered by the respondents to justify a fair procedure. The court awarded three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination plus prorated leave.
Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought
Partially - the court awarded compensation and prorated leave but not the full remedies claimed.
The court granted each claimant 3 months' salary (Kshs. 900,000) as compensation and prorated leave for 6 months (Kshs. 150,000), totaling Kshs. 1,050,000 less statutory deductions. The declaratory reliefs, certificate of service and damages as framed in the Memorandum of Claim were not granted as sought. Costs and interest were awarded against the 1st Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who denies employing claimants but adduces no evidence risks the claimant's case being treated as uncontroverted and proved.
- Payment of a fixed monthly amount into claimants' accounts, without contracts of service, can suffice to prove an employment relationship where uncontroverted.
Court orders
#- 1.Award of 3 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination to each claimant (3 x 300,000 = Kshs. 900,000/-)
- 2.Award of prorated leave for 6 months to each claimant (Kshs. 150,000/-)
- 3.Total award of Kshs. 1,050,000/- per claimant less statutory deductions
- 4.1st Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (challenged by Respondents on the basis that there was no employer-employee relationship)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unlawful, null and void
Court instead awarded compensation for unfair termination rather than the declaratory relief sought
Damages for unlawful termination as sought
Court awarded statutory compensation of 3 months' salary instead of the damages claimed
Claims against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents personally
2nd Claimant conceded no claim remained against them
Certificate of service
Not addressed in the court's orders
Costs
The 1st respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
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 respondents denied employing the claimants but they never adduced any evidence before this court. I find the claimant’s case proved accordingly for unfair termination.
I also award each claimant prorated leave for 6 months = 150,000/-
The 1st respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to a single 'Claimant' in the opening paragraphs but the claim is plainly brought by three claimants throughout
The Memorandum of Claim is dated 8th November 2021 but the Statement of Response is dated 13th December 2023, an unexplained two-year gap
The witness statement adopted was dated 30th April 2024, after the claim of 2021, and CW1 had no written authority to testify for the 1st and 3rd Claimants, yet the court treated the case as proved for all claimants
CW1 testified salary payments appear in bank statements only from April 2021 while the claimants say they were employed earlier (party formed government for term 2017)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bore & 2 others v Jubilee Party & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E917 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1707 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 8th November 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1707/eng@2025-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.