Gichuki v Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC (Petition E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2578 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a worker Kshs. 450,000 after 8 years on rolling 3-month contracts, but upheld her dismissal as fair.
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 Petitioner's repeated extended 3-month contracts were in violation of fair labour practices
- 2.Whether the dismissal of the Petitioner was fair and lawful
- 3.Whether the Petition raises constitutional grievances
- 4.Whether the Petitioner merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Whether repeated 3-month contracts over 8 years and 2 months violated the Petitioner's right to fair labour practices
Yes - the Respondent violated Article 41 by casualizing the Petitioner's employment
The Court held that meter reading is core work not temporary in nature, and repeated 3-month contracts have the same effect as casual employment, depriving the employee of job security and cumulative benefits. The Public Service Commission Act and Regulations 2020 prohibit such prolonged temporary engagement, permitting term contracts of at least 12 months. The Respondent, a State Corporation, exploited the Petitioner by using her on a core function without job security, even appointing her to supervise others.
Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair
Yes - procedure complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act
The Petitioner recorded a statement, was issued a show-cause letter and responded, was invited for hearing with the right to be accompanied, was heard on 3rd May 2023, dismissed by letter dated 4th July 2023, and her appeal was heard and determined. The Court found the procedure met the minimum statutory standards of procedural fairness under Section 41.
Whether the dismissal was for valid reasons
Yes - valid reasons existed under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Evidence from investigations, witness statements and site inspections placed the Petitioner at the premises where the illegal line was constructed. She never denied involvement with Ongure and conceded meeting him; her good-faith defence did not deprive the Respondent of justification. Her criminal acquittal, which collapsed on prosecutorial ineptitude, had no bearing on the disciplinary process.
Whether the Petition raises a constitutional grievance
Yes - in respect of Article 41 only
The Employment Act does not define unfair labour practices and regulates unfair acts mainly in relation to termination, so the Petitioner would be limited if confined to the Act. The Court doubted violations under other Articles but found adequate justification for the Article 41 claim.
Legal principles established
#- Engaging an employee on repeated short-term contracts over a prolonged period amounts to casualization of labour and violates the right to fair labour practices under Article 41
- Where an employee has worked for a prolonged continuous period, the employment cannot be regarded as temporary
- Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar or invalidate disciplinary proceedings, the two processes being separate and independent
- Elements of malicious prosecution must all be established by the party alleging it
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 41 of the Constitution, by employing her on repeated temporary contracts of 3-months, over a period of 8 years and 2 months
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner general damages for this violation, at Kshs. 450,000
- 3.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- 4.No order on the 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 Constitution and the Employment Act, 2007 (Articles 27, 28, 29(f), 41 and 43 of the Constitution invoked; delivered under Rule 68(5) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024)
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
Termination was based on valid reasons and was procedurally and substantively fair
Prayer for computation and payment of the difference between benefits paid and those payable on permanent and pensionable service
The prayer was generalized and lacked evidence; granting it would open a secondary dispute
Order to quash the decision summarily dismissing the Petitioner
Not merited, termination having been carried out fairly, for valid reasons
Reinstatement without loss of benefits
Termination was procedurally fair and substantively justifiable
General damages for malicious prosecution
No evidence of malicious prosecution; prosecution was initiated on reasonable and probable cause and the Petitioner was acquitted on a technicality
Costs
No order on the 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.
It is obvious that having worked for 8 years and 2 months, the Petitioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, have been serving on a temporary contract.
Offering short term contracts to Employees, for prolonged periods, is casualization of labour, which deprives Employees of job security and terminal benefits due to permanent and pensionable Employees.
The contracts were exploitative, and an unfair labour practice.
The criminal case had no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. It has no bearing on the Cause herein.
The Court is satisfied that termination was based on valid reasons, under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007.
It is declared that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 41 of the Constitution, by employing her on repeated temporary contracts of 3-months, over a period of 8 years and 2 months.
The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner general damages for this violation, at Kshs. 450,000.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: Petitioner's reply to show-cause letter stated as 4th November 2023, months after the hearing date of 3rd May 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichuki v Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC (Petition E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text (Petition dated 4th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2578/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.