Emodo v Sheer Logic Management Consultants (Cause E149 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2412 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a worker paid by amount of work done was on piece rate, so the job ending when the client contract ended wasn't unfair dismissal.
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 claimant was a casual labour or piece rate employee of the Respondent
- 2.Whether the termination of the claimant was fair and justified
- 3.whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was a casual or piece rate employee
The claimant was a piece rate employee, not a casual labourer, as his salary was not static and varied with work done.
The payslips produced showed fluctuating pay dependent on the amount of work done. Both CW2 and RW1 confirmed that salary payable depended on work done. The claimant worked only when work was available, about two days a week, consistent with piecework as defined in section 2 of the Employment Act rather than casual employment under 24-hour engagements.
Whether the termination was fair and justified
There was no wrongful termination; the engagement was contingent on the EABL contract which came to an end, and the claimant was notified and absorbed by Q-Sourcing.
The employment was based on work available, which ended when EABL descoped its logistics services. The Respondent gave notice at the 12th September 2019 meeting, later extended, and the claimants were absorbed by Q-Sourcing in October 2019. The court found the relationship continued only as long as EABL required the services, so the Respondent did not deliberately terminate the engagement.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Only a certificate of service was granted; terminal dues were refused because details were not set out and the claimant's dues were covered by NSSF contributions.
The court found the claimant did not particularise his terminal dues and was a member of NSSF, so any dues were covered by contributions and remittances. Compensation under section 49 was refused since no unfair termination was established. The only remaining prayer, the certificate of service, was granted, with no order for costs given the nature of the claim.
Legal principles established
#- An engagement where pay is ascertained by the amount of work performed, with salary varying month to month, is a piece rate engagement and not casual employment.
- Where a piece rate worker's employment is tied to an outsourced contract that comes to an end, the cessation of the contract ends the engagement and does not constitute wrongful termination by the employer.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent is to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service
- 2.No order for costs (each party to bear own costs implicitly - court stated it will not grant any order for costs)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims (Employment Act; claim for unfair termination and terminal dues)
- Consolidated with
- E151 of 2021
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unfair and unlawful
Employment was piece rate and ended when EABL's contract with the Respondent ended; the Respondent did not deliberately terminate the engagement
Terminal dues and compensatory damages totalling Kshs. 1,297,990
Details of terminal dues not set out; Claimant was an NSSF member so dues covered by NSSF contributions
Costs of the suit
Given the nature of the claim, the court declined to grant costs
Costs
No order for costs - 'Given the nature of the claim, I will not grant any order for 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.
Having considered this position, it is evident that the relationship between the claimant and the Respondents was not a casual employment relationship but piece rated engagement.
It is therefore clear that the respondents didn't deliberately terminate their engagement with the claimant but this relationship was of a nature that it remained standing as long as EABL needed the services and this understanding was very clear.
The only other prayer sought is for issuance of a certificate of service which I grant him accordingly. Given the nature of the claim, I will not grant any order for costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' full names are not stated in the body of the judgment; the claim is referred to only as filed on 17th December 2021 and the Respondent is never named.
Internal contradiction: the court states the claimant was not a casual but a piece rate employee, while counsel for the claimant had sought 12 months' compensation relying on 28 days' notice under section 35(1)(c), which the court did not resolve expressly.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emodo v Sheer Logic Management Consultants (Cause E149 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Consolidated with E151 of 2021 (Claimant's Memorandum of Claim dated 17th December 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2412/eng@2025-09-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.