[2019] KEELRC 1883 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1883 (KLR)

The court found that both parties agreed the claimant was engaged as a casual worker, paid daily, and worked only when work was available, with no obligation on either party for continuous service. The nature of the respondent's business—sugarcane farming—necessitated seasonal and casual labour, and the claimant had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1883 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Bakari Ali Mbega; Respondent: Kwale International Sugar Company
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 704 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Casual Employment, Termination of Employment, Statutory Rights of Workers
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Casual Employment Termination of Employment Statutory Rights of Workers

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakari Ali Mbega

Claimant

Kwale International Sugar Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a casual worker or entitled to regular employment protections under the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair and in violation of statutory requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and other reliefs sought for alleged unfair termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties agreed the claimant was engaged as a casual worker, paid daily, and worked only when work was available, with no obligation on either party for continuous service. The nature of the respondent's business—sugarcane farming—necessitated seasonal and casual labour, and the claimant had the liberty to choose when to work. There was no evidence of continuous, uninterrupted service that would warrant conversion to regular employment under Section 37 of the Employment Act 2007. Consequently, the claimant was not entitled to statutory protections or remedies for unfair termination reserved for regular employees. The cited precedent was distinguishable, as the...

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is rejected.
  • No order on the costs.