Sabonsi & 6 others v Sheer Logic Management Consultants (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E151, E153, E154, E156, E157, E158 & E159 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that workers paid by output were piece-rate employees whose jobs lawfully ended when the client contract ended, awarding only certificates of service.
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 casual labours or piece rate employees of the Respondents
- 2.Whether the termination of the claimants was fair and justified
- 3.Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Status of the claimants: casual or piece rate employees
Claimants were piece rate employees, not casual labourers
The court relied on the payslips showing fluctuating monthly salaries and the testimony of CW2 and RW1 that pay depended on work done. On that evidence the court concluded the relationship was a piece rated engagement rather than casual employment, so the Section 37 conversion argument did not arise as pleaded.
Whether the termination was fair and justified
Termination was not wrongful; the employment ended when EABL descoped the contract
The court held the employment was based on work available and survived only as long as EABL needed the services, an understanding that was clear to the parties. When EABL terminated its engagement with the Respondent, the work ended; the Respondent did not deliberately terminate the claimants' engagement.
Entitlement to terminal dues and damages
No terminal dues awarded; claimants were NSSF members and did not prove other dues
The court found the claimants did not particularise the terminal dues claimed. As NSSF members, terminal dues were covered by their contributions and remittances, and no other dues were explained. Only the certificates of service were granted.
Legal principles established
#- Where payment fluctuates according to work done, the engagement is a piece rate relationship rather than casual employment
- Where employment is contingent on an outsourced contract and that contract ends, the end of the engagement is not wrongful termination by the labour supplier
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to issue the Claimants their certificates of service
- 2.No 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 under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (original employment claim)
- Consolidated with
- Cause No. E149/2021, Cause No. E156/2021, Cause No. E157/2021, Cause No. E159/2021, Cause No. E153/2021, Cause No. E154/2021
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unfair and unlawful
Court found the employment was tied to the EABL contract which came to an end, and the Respondent did not deliberately terminate the engagement
Terminal dues and compensatory damages (Kshs. 1,358,860 to 2,077,308 per claimant)
Details of terminal remedies not set out; claimants were NSSF members so terminal dues covered by contributions; no other dues explained
Costs of the suit
Given the nature of the claim
Interest on damages and costs
Falls away as the substantive monetary reliefs were refused
Costs
No order for costs - each party to bear their own costs (court declined to 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 claimants and the Respondents was not a casual employment relationship but piece rated engagement.
The issue of wrongful termination does not therefore exist.
The only other prayer sought is for issuance of their certificates of service which I grant them accordingly. Given the nature of the claim, I will not grant any order for costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The court's summary of the evidence attributes the piece-rate testimony to CW2 in one passage while the evidence record shows it was CW1 who testified to being piece-rated
Numerical typo in the 5th Claimant's claimed damages (figures transposed)
The judgment does not name the Respondent party in its text or heading as reproduced
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sabonsi & 6 others v Sheer Logic Management Consultants (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E151, E153, E154, E156, E157, E158 & E159 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. E151/2021 (consolidated with E149/2021, E156/2021, E157/2021, E159/2021, E153/2021 and E154/2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2422/eng@2025-09-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.