Ciambuba v Neptune Shelters Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a cleaner's appeal because she could not prove the management company, not the landlord, was her employer.
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 trial court erred by finding that the Appellant failed to establish employer-employee relationship between her and the Respondent
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Appellant was not unfairly terminated
- 3.Whether the trial court erred by not allowing the reliefs sought by the Appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the Appellant and the Respondent
No employment relationship existed; the Respondent was merely an agent/management company of the landlord, and the Appellant was hired and fired by the landlord/landlady.
Applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests from Charles Juma Oleng, the court found the Appellant was under the control and instructions of the landlady, not the Respondent. The management agreement placed cleaning at the landlord's cost, contained no employee takeover clause, and payments through the Respondent's account were made at the landlord's instance from rent collected.
Whether the Appellant was unfairly terminated by the Respondent
Having found no employment relationship, the court held there was no way the Appellant could have been unfairly terminated by the Respondent.
Unfair termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act presupposes an employment relationship. Since the Appellant was never the Respondent's employee, the trial court's finding that she was not unfairly terminated by the Respondent was correct and was affirmed.
Whether the Appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Not entitled; without an established employer-employee relationship all reliefs fail.
The reliefs (notice pay, compensation, severance, leave, public holidays, housing allowance, certificate of service) are all predicated on an employment relationship with the Respondent. That predicate having failed on the evidence, the trial court correctly dismissed the claim and the appeal against that dismissal fails.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the ELRC in employment matters is limited by the existence of an employment relationship as defined in law, which the court must satisfy itself of before proceeding.
- The burden of proving an employment relationship lies on the claimant; the employer's duty to keep records does not release the claimant from proving their case, including serving a production notice for documents in the employer's possession.
- Where a management agreement places cleaning at the landlord's cost, cleaners are employed by the landlord, not the management company acting as agent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is found unmerited and is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court (ELRC)
- MC. ELRC NO. E736 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in an employment dispute (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Relief refused
#Setting aside/reversal of the trial court's judgment and substitution with an order allowing the Appellant's suit in the lower court as prayed
The Appellant failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent; the trial court did not err
All employment dues (notice pay, 12 months' compensation, severance, leave, public holidays, housing allowance, certificate of service)
Not entitled to reliefs absent proof of employment relationship with the Respondent
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs (costs to the Respondent)
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 jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations court as far as employment matters are concerned is limited by the existence of an employment relationship as defined in law and the court must always satisfy itself on this account before proceeding any further.
This does not however release the Claimant from the burden of proving their case. Even in cases where an employment contract is oral in nature, the Claimant must still adduce some evidence whether documentary or viva voce to corroborate their word.
since cleaning was at the expense of the Landlord it meant cleaners were to be employed by the landlord and not the management company.
In the upshot the Appeal is found unmerited and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the management agreement within the same paragraph
Appellant's monthly salary stated inconsistently across the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ciambuba v Neptune Shelters Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal E199 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2550/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.