[2025] KEELRC 671 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 671 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant was not a casual labourer but a permanent employee under Section 37 of the Employment Act, having worked continuously for over five years. The Respondent failed to provide any valid reason or due process for the termination, violating Sections 35 and 45 of the Act. The Claimant was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 671 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Njonja Bundi; Respondent: Jackie Kiaraho
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E748 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the applicant
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Casual to Permanent Conversion, Minimum Wage Violation, Overtime Compensation, Annual Leave Entitlement, Service Pay
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Casual to Permanent Conversion Minimum Wage Violation Overtime Compensation Annual Leave Entitlement Service Pay

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Njonja Bundi

Applicant

Jackie Kiaraho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was a casual or permanent employee entitled to protections under the Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's termination was unfair and unlawful under Sections 35, 37, and 45 of the Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent violated statutory minimum wage, overtime, annual leave, and other employment rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant was not a casual labourer but a permanent employee under Section 37 of the Employment Act, having worked continuously for over five years. The Respondent failed to provide any valid reason or due process for the termination, violating Sections 35 and 45 of the Act. The Claimant was underpaid, denied overtime, annual leave, and service pay, and was not issued a certificate of service. The Respondent's failure to participate in the proceedings, despite proper service, left the Claimant's evidence uncontroverted. The court held that the Claimant's termination was unlawful and unfair, and he was entitled to compensation for underpayment, overtime, leave,...

Court Disposition

judgment for the applicant

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant was an employee protected under the Employment Act and not a casual labourer.
  • Declaration that the Claimant’s termination was unlawful and unfair.