[2020] KEELRC 1175 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1175 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to prove he worked for the respondent continuously for an aggregate period exceeding one month. His own admissions during cross-examination confirmed that his work was intermittent, dependent on the respondent's peak and low seasons, and that his pay varied with the number of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1175 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Perter Maundu Malonza; Respondent: Frigoken Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1454 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Casual Employment, Conversion to Permanent Employment, Unfair Termination, Compensatory Damages, Nssf Contributions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Casual Employment Conversion to Permanent Employment Unfair Termination Compensatory Damages Nssf Contributions

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perter Maundu Malonza

Claimant

Frigoken Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant’s casual employment converted to a regular terms contract of service under section 37 of the Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including terminal dues and compensatory damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to prove he worked for the respondent continuously for an aggregate period exceeding one month. His own admissions during cross-examination confirmed that his work was intermittent, dependent on the respondent's peak and low seasons, and that his pay varied with the number of days worked. The court held that the evidence did not support conversion of his casual employment to a regular contract under section 37 of the Employment Act. Consequently, the protections against unfair dismissal and entitlement to compensatory damages did not apply. The claim for unremitted NSSF contributions also failed due to lack of evidence. The suit was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The claimant's suit is dismissed with costs to the respondent.