https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/149

Mrumwengu v Juma (Cause E269 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 149 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 149 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Cause E269 of 2025 EM Mwamuye, SRM June 25, 2026 Between Amina Ali Mrumwengu Claimant and Farhiyo Omar Juma Respondent Judgment Introduction 1.The Claimant commenced these proceedings through a Memorandum of Claim dated 16th April 2025 seeking reliefs arising from alleged unfair and unlawful termination of employment. She pleaded that she was employed by the Respondent as a domestic worker from 5th August 2019 until 4th April 2025 earning a monthly salary of Kshs.10,000 and that on 4th April 2025 the Respondent verbally terminated her employment without notice, hearing or lawful cause. 2.The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence denying the claim and maintaining that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Respondent's case was that the Claimant was only engaged occasionally on a casual and task-based arrangement and was paid depending on the work performed. 3.The Claimant's case was heard on 17th November 2025 while the Respondent testified on 16th March 2026. Both parties thereafter filed written submissions. The Claimant's Case 4.The Claimant testified that she was employed by the Respondent as a domestic worker from 5th August 2019 until 4th April 2025. 5.Her evidence was that she earned Kshs.10,000/= per month and continuously performed domestic duties for the Respondent throughout the period of employment. 6.She stated that on 4th April 2025, after completing her daily duties, the Respondent verbally instructed her to leave and never return to work because her services were no longer required. 7.According to the Claimant: She was not issued with a notice to show cause. She was not given any warning letter. She was not accorded a disciplinary hearing. No Labour Officer was involved. No reasons were given for the termination. 8.The Claimant produced: National Identity Card. M-Pesa Statement. Demand Letter dated 7th April 2025. Other documents filed together with the claim. 9.The Claimant further asserted that she was underpaid throughout her employment because she earned Kshs.10,000/= per month while the applicable minimum wage was Kshs.15,201.65/=. 10.She therefore prayed for: Compensation for unfair termination. Annual leave pay. Service pay. Notice pay. Underpayments. Certificate of service. Costs and interest. The total monetary claim was Kshs.693,350.18/=. The Respondent's Case 11.The Respondent denied employing the Claimant on permanent terms. Her evidence was that: The Claimant was never employed as alleged. No employer-employee relationship existed. The Claimant worked for different people. The Claimant was only engaged occasionally when tasks arose. Payments were made according to work done and not on a monthly salary basis. The M-Pesa transfers relied upon by the Claimant were payments for errands, shopping and casual tasks. The Respondent maintained that she never terminated the Claimant because there was no employment relationship capable of termination. She therefore urged the Court to dismiss the claim with costs. Issues for Determination 12.Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions, the following issues arise for determination:i.Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.ii.If so, whether the Claimant's employment was terminated by the Respondent.iii.Whether the termination was unfair and unlawful.iv.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.v.Costs. Analysis and Determination Whether an Employer-employee Relationship Existed 13.The Respondent's defence is founded entirely on the proposition that no employment relationship existed. However, upon evaluating the totality of the evidence, the Court is unable to agree with that position. Several matters stand out. 14.First, the Respondent admitted engaging the Claimant's services. Secondly, the Respondent admitted that the Claimant performed domestic chores and errands. Thirdly, the Respondent admitted sending money to the Claimant through M-Pesa. Fourthly, the Respondent admitted during cross-examination that the Claimant had been rendering services from around 2019 and further referred to her as a casual employee. 15.The M-Pesa records produced by the Claimant show a pattern of payments from the Respondent spanning a period extending from 2021 to 2025. While the payments were not uniform, domestic employment relationships within private households are frequently undocumented and informal. The Court cannot ignore the realities of domestic labour in Kenya where wages are often paid in cash, through M-Pesa and without written contracts. 16.The Respondent did not produce: Employment records. Attendance records. Leave records. NSSF records. Any documentary material showing that the Claimant was merely an occasional contractor. 17.Section 10(7) of the Employment Act provides that where an employer fails to produce a written contract or employment records, the burden of disproving an alleged term of employment shifts to the employer. 18.Having admitted engaging the Claimant's services and having failed to keep statutory employment records, the Respondent cannot benefit from her own failure to comply with the law. 19.I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that an employment relationship existed between the parties. Whether the Claimant's Employment was Terminated 20.The Claimant's evidence was that on 4th April 2025 she was verbally instructed to leave and never return to work. 21.The Respondent did not offer any alternative explanation regarding cessation of the relationship. 22.If indeed the Claimant was only a casual worker, the Respondent would have been expected to explain why the engagement ceased after years of service. TheCourt finds the Claimant's testimony credible and consistent. 23.I therefore find that the Claimant's employment was terminated by the Respondent on 4th April 2025. Whether the Termination was Unfair and Unlawful 24.Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act require an employer to establish:A valid and fair reason for termination; and compliance with procedural fairness.The Respondent neither pleaded nor proved any reason for terminating the Claimant's employment. No misconduct was alleged. No poor performance was alleged. No redundancy process was undertaken. No hearing was conducted. No notice was issued. No warning letters were produced. No evidence was tendered showing compliance with Section 41 of the Employment Act. 25.Consequently, the Respondent failed to discharge the statutory burden imposed by Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 26.The Court therefore finds that the termination of the Claimant's employment was both substantively and procedurally unfair. Remedies 27.Compensation for Unfair Termination- The Claimant served the Respondent for approximately six years. There is no evidence of misconduct on her part. The termination was abrupt and without due process. 28.Considering the factors under Section 49(4) of the Employment Act, an award equivalent to eight (8) months' salary is fair.Using the pleaded wage of Kshs.15,201.65:Kshs.15,201.65 × 8 = Kshs.121,613.20 29.Notice Pay- The Claimant was not given notice. One month's salary in lieu of notice is awarded. Kshs.15,201.65 30.Annual Leave- The Claimant claimed leave for six years. The Respondent produced no leave records despite the statutory obligation to keep them. The Court therefore accepts the claim. Kshs.91,209.90/= is awarded. 31.Service Pay- No evidence was produced demonstrating remittance of NSSF contributions. The Respondent admitted she had no NSSF records. Service pay is therefore payable. Kshs.45,604.98/= is awarded. 32.Underpayments- The Claimant sought underpayments based on the difference between Kshs.10,000 and the pleaded statutory minimum wage of Kshs.15,201.65. Although the Court accepts that underpayment occurred, the computation presented assumes a constant minimum wage over the entire six-year period whereas wage orders changed during the relevant years. The Court is therefore unable to safely adopt the pleaded figure of Kshs.358,913.85. The claim for underpayment is declined for want of a proper year-by-year computation supported by the applicable Wage Orders. 33.Judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Respondent as follows:a.8 months compensation 121,613.20b.One month notice pay 15,201.65c.Annual leave pay 91,209.90d.Service pay 45,604.98e.Total 273,629.73 Final Ordersa.A declaration is hereby issued that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful.b.Judgment is entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs.273,629.73.c.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days of this Judgment.d.The awarded sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.e.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOSFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 25TH JUNE 2026.……………………………………………….EMILY M. MWAMUYESENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE