[2013] KEELRC 466 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 466 (KLR)

The court found that although both parties referred to the claimant as an employee, the evidence established that the claimant was engaged by multiple landlords, including the respondent, to perform similar caretaker duties. This arrangement did not constitute an exclusive employer-employee relationship as defined...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 466 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Inyangu Dungani; Respondent: Mary Khagali Lumula
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1541 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Final Award
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Independent Contractor Status, Wrongful Termination, Employee Benefits, Summary Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Employment Relationship Independent Contractor Status Wrongful Termination Employee Benefits Summary Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Inyangu Dungani

Claimant

Mary Khagali Lumula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Final Award

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent within the meaning of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was wrongfully terminated and entitled to employment benefits claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although both parties referred to the claimant as an employee, the evidence established that the claimant was engaged by multiple landlords, including the respondent, to perform similar caretaker duties. This arrangement did not constitute an exclusive employer-employee relationship as defined by the Employment Act, 2007. Instead, the claimant was deemed an independent contractor. As such, he was not entitled to the statutory benefits and remedies available to employees under the Act. The entire claim was therefore dismissed for lack of an employment relationship.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's entire claim against the respondent is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.