[2015] KEELRC 722 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 722 (KLR)

The court found that, despite the Claimants' long engagement with the Respondent and the integral nature of their work, the evidence showed they were engaged as independent contractors rather than employees. The documentation, mode of payment (by voucher upon invoice), and limited days of work per month indicated a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 722 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Kamau Ndiritu; Applicant: James Maina Mwangi; Respondent: Intercontinental Hotel
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2347 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Final Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Independent Contractor Status, Contract of Service, Employee Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Employment Relationship Independent Contractor Status Contract of Service Employee Benefits

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Kamau Ndiritu

Applicant

James Maina Mwangi

Applicant

Intercontinental Hotel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Final Award

  1. 1 Whether there was an employment relationship between the Claimants and the Respondent capable of enforcement by the Court.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the Claimants' long engagement with the Respondent and the integral nature of their work, the evidence showed they were engaged as independent contractors rather than employees. The documentation, mode of payment (by voucher upon invoice), and limited days of work per month indicated a contract for services, not a contract of service. The absence of individual employment contracts and the arrangement's structure supported this conclusion. As independent contractors, the Claimants were not entitled to the employment benefits claimed, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Consequently, the entire claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The Claimants' entire claim is dismissed with no order for costs.