https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1838

Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Uplands Crops Ltd (Cause E048 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1838 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1838 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E048 of 2025 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers Claimant and Uplands Crops Limited Respondent Judgment 1.This Claim is presented by the Claimant Union [acronym KUCFAW], on behalf of its member, Leonard Nge’no [the Grievant]. 2.The Grievant is a former Employee of the Respondent. 3.He was employed as a storekeeper, on 15th March 2015, on a monthly salary of Kshs. 9,000. In May of the same year, he was converted to a lorry driver, earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 12,000. 4.He was elevated to a truck driver in December of the same year, with an enhanced monthly salary of Kshs. 15,000. 5.The last position held by the Grievant was that of a crawler tractor driver, effective July 2016, earning a monthly salary of Kshs. 20,000. 6.On 1st January 2024, the Grievant alongside other Employees, was required to reapply for his job, under a company known as Peoplelink Consultants Limited. 7.The Claimant approached the Respondent to consult on the proposed change of Employer. The Respondent declined invitation, leading to report of the dispute to the Ministry of Labour on 8th February 2024. 8.The Respondent did not submit to the conciliation process. The Conciliator recommended that the Grievant is paid 1-month salary in lieu of notice; accrued annual leave days; underpayments; and 12 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination. The Claimant accepted the recommendation, but the Respondent did not, leading to filing of this Claim. 9.The Claimant states that the Grievant had worked for 8 years for the Respondent. He was being placed under a new Employer, without being paid his benefits for the past 8 years. The Respondent did not notify the Grievant about termination of his 8-year contract. 10.The Claimant prays for: -a.Declaration that the action by the Respondent was unlawful.b.1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 26,579.c.Service pay at 15 days’ salary for each of the 8 years at Kshs. 107,340.d.House allowance at Kshs. 143,529.e.Annual leave [no total sum given].f.Underpayment of salary [no total given].g.12 months’ salary in compensation.h.Any other suitable relief.i.Costs. 11.The Claimant states most of the items above without giving the total sums pleaded. It is not clear who is supposed to complete the math work for the Claimant Union. 12.The Respondent filed its Statement of Response dated 6th October 2025. 13.The Statement of Response generally denies all the averments made by the Claimant, save for description of the Parties. The Court is urged to dismiss the Claim with costs. 14.The Grievant gave evidence as did Respondent’s human Resource manager, Richard Mutitu, on 19th February 2026, closing the hearing. The Claim was last mentioned before the Court on 17th April 2026, when Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their submissions. 15.The Grievant adopted his witness statement and documents, in his evidence-in-chief. The Claimant introduced additional documents with its closing submissions, which were expunged from the record. 16.He told the Court that he resigned. He was being placed under another Employer by the Respondent, at the same workplace, to perform the same work. He was denied benefits for the 8 years completed in service. 17.Cross-examined, he told the Court that he was not issued a letter of employment by the Respondent, but had other documents such as KRA form P9, to prove employment. He was not issued document on assignment to different role. He did not have pay slips showing salary earned. He was last a crawler tractor driver, earning Kshs. 20,000 monthly. He was being moved to Peoplelink Consultants Limited as a driver. There was no letter of transfer from the Respondent. He was not issued a certificate of service. 18.Richard Mutitu, human resource manager, adopted his witness statement and documents filed by the Respondent, in his evidence-in-chief. 19.He told the Court that the Respondent did not employ the Grievant. The Respondent normally issues written contracts. It does not operate by word of mouth. It issues itemized payslips before payment of salary. The Grievant was employed by Peoplelink Consultants Limited, an outsourcing firm. 20.The Peoplelink Consultants Limited’s agreement on record refers to secondment. The Respondent did not pay service to the Grievant before secondment, because he was not an Employee of the Respondent. If he was employed by the Respondent, he ought to exhibit his contract before the Court. The Respondent stamped the Statement of Claim on service. 21.The issues are whether the Grievant was an Employee of the Respondent; whether the Respondent terminated his contract fairly; and whether he merits the remedies sought. The Court Finds: - 22.The Grievant was employed by the Respondent as pleaded. The Respondent denied throughout its pleadings and evidence, to have employed the Grievant. 23.There is a form P9 issued to the Grievant by the Respondent. The Employer is indicated to be Uplands Crops Limited. The Employee is Leonard Ng’eno. 24.The Respondent’s witness alleged that the Grievant was employed by Peoplelink Consultants Limited. How would the Respondent know this, if the Grievant was a stranger to it? 25.Peoplelink Consultants Limited was an outsourcing agency, engaged by the Respondent to manage its labour force, in the hope that this would assist the Respondent in avoiding legal and regulatory burdens, as it has attempted to do in this Claim, by alleging that the Grievant was employed by Peoplelink Consultants Limited. 26.The Grievant was intended to remain at the same place of work, driving the same crawler tractor. 27.The Respondent delivered him onto an outsourcing agency, without declaring delivery openly, and without meeting its obligations for terminating the contract it had with him, for 8 years. 28.The Labour Office investigated, and engaged the Respondent, as an Employer. The Respondent never denied it employed the Grievant, when Parties were called to the Labour Office. 29.Unfortunately, the Claimant Union did not present important documents such as a pay slip, before, or during the hearing of the Claim. A pay slip is an elementary employment document, which should never be omitted in a Claimant’s bundle of documents. An attempt to introduce a pay slip after the hearing, during the filing of submissions, was declined by the Court. Documents omitted during pleading and hearing, are not to be smuggled into the court record, through closing submissions. 30.Monetary prayers, such as underpayment of salary, service pay, annual leave days, and underpayment of salary are not supported by adequate documentation. The math work as pleaded is incomplete. The prayers are declined. 31.The only document that offers some assistance to the Court, is the P9 form, which indicates that the Grievant received a monthly salary of Kshs. 20,000. 32.He did not cause or contribute to the circumstances leading to termination of his contract. The Respondent offloaded him to an outsourcing agency, without taking responsibility for any accrued benefits. There was no valid reason by the Respondent for terminating the Grievant’s contract. He was not called to a sitting and given the reason for termination of his 8-year contract. 33.He is granted 1-month salary in lieu of notice, at Kshs. 20,000 and equivalent of 8 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination, at Kshs. 160,000 – total Kshs. 180,000. 34.No order on the costs. 35.Interest allowed at court rate from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.IN SUM, IT IS ORDERED:-a.It is declared that termination was unfair.b.The Respondent shall pay to the Grievant through the Claimant, notice at Kshs. 20,000 and compensation at Kshs. 160,000 – total Kshs. 180,000.c.No order on the costs.d.Interest allowed at court rate from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE