Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Kaironge Wanyoike
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a casual worker only becomes a permanent employee after continuous work totalling at least one month, not scattered seasonal stints.
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
The Trial Magistrate erred; the muster rolls did not demonstrate continuous work aggregating to one month, so no conversion occurred and Section 35(1)(c) did not apply
The court re-evaluated the muster rolls covering December 2011 to August 2019, which showed sporadic engagements of 7 to 21 days per season. Although some engagements exceeded 24 hours, the statutory threshold of continuous work aggregating to not less than one month was not met. Conversion under Section 37 therefore did not occur, and the statutory protections of the Employment Act were not triggered.
Whether the Respondent's employment was unfairly terminated and whether the reliefs awarded were sustainable
The unfair termination issue became moot given the finding on conversion, and the reliefs awarded by the Trial Court were set aside
Having found no conversion to a term contract, the premise of the unfair termination claim collapsed. The court held the second issue moot and unsustainable, setting aside the awards for house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments and unpaid overtime, and dismissing the entire claim.
Preliminary issue: whether the Respondent's alleged failure to testify before the Trial Court was fatal
The issue did not arise because the record showed the Respondent testified on 21st January 2025, separately from other related respondents
Both parties had submitted that the Respondent did not testify, but the court found on the record that he did testify on 21st January 2025 separately from the other respondents in related matters. The ground of appeal and submissions on non-appearance were therefore misconceived and required no determination.
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 to not less than one month, or performs work not reasonably expected to be completed within three months or more
- On a first appeal the court must reconsider and re-evaluate the entire evidence and draw its own conclusions, while deferring to the trial court 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
- 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 MCELRC Cause No. 006 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the subordinate court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court's appellate jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Respondent's claim for conversion to term employment, unfair termination reliefs, house allowance, accrued leave, underpayments and unpaid overtime
Evidence did not show continuous work aggregating to not less than one month as required for conversion under Section 37 of the Employment Act
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.
the evidence on record does not demonstrate that the Respondent worked continuously for a period aggregating to not less than one (1) month, as contemplated under Section 37 of the Employment Act
this Court is obligated to reconsider, re-evaluate, and re-analyse the entire evidence on record, together with the impugned Judgment, and to draw its own independent conclusions
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date printed as 2026, apparently inconsistent with the 2025 appeal timeline
Ground 1 of the Memorandum of Appeal misgenders the Respondent and contradicts the record that he testified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Weithaga Farm Extension Limited v Kaironge Wanyoike", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E020 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2642/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.