Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Peter Macharia Githinji
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a casual farm worker never became a permanent employee, so his unfair termination award was overturned.
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 in finding that the Respondent's engagement as a casual employee had automatically converted into a term contract
- 2.Subject to issue (a), whether the Respondent's employment was unfairly terminated
- 3.Subject to issue (b), whether the reliefs awarded to the Respondent by the Trial Court are sustainable in law
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's casual engagement converted into a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act
No conversion; the evidence did not show continuous work aggregating to one month, so Section 35(1)(c) protections did not apply
The muster rolls showed the Respondent worked intermittently: 23 days in January 2012, 7 days in October 2012, absence from the rolls for 2013-2017, and scattered days in 2018. Occasional periods exceeding 24 hours did not amount to continuous work aggregating to one month as Section 37 requires, so the Trial Magistrate erred in holding that the engagement had converted by operation of law.
Whether the Respondent's employment was unfairly terminated and whether the reliefs awarded were sustainable
The unfair termination question became moot once conversion failed, and all reliefs awarded fell with the judgment
Having found no conversion into a term contract, the statutory protections against unfair termination under the Employment Act were unavailable to the Respondent. The second issue was therefore moot and did not fall for consideration, and the consequential reliefs of notice pay, accrued leave pay and maximum compensation could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- Casual employment converts to a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act only where the employee works continuously for a period aggregating not less than one month, or performs work not reasonably completable within three months or more
- On a first appeal, the court must reconsider and re-evaluate the entire evidence while deferring to the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 23rd April 2025 is set aside in its entirety
- 2.Substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim in Murang'a CMELRC Cause No. 17 of 2020
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Murang'a (ELRC)
- Murang'a CMELRC Cause No. 17 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's ELRC judgment (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; appeal from Murang'a CMELRC Cause No. 17 of 2020)
Relief refused
#Respondent's claim for notice pay, accrued leave pay and compensation for unfair termination
Conversion into a term contract under Section 37 not established, so the reliefs could not be sustained
Costs
Each party shall bear its own 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.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 23rd April 2025 is hereby set aside in its entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the Respondent's claim.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
this Court is not persuaded that the Respondent's engagement was converted into a term contract
Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Trial Magistrate erred in holding that the Respondent's casual engagement had, by operation of law, converted into a term contract under Section 37 of the Employment Act.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date (25 September 2026) appears inconsistent with an appeal filed in 2025 from an April 2025 judgment
Ground 1 asserts the claimant failed to appear to prosecute the claim, contradicting the record of a full hearing
Respondent pleaded employment from 1996 but the appeal ground and analysis refer to 1993
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Peter Macharia Githinji", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E015 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2624/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.