Piece-rate workers: The Case of West Kenya Sugar Company Limited v Lukamasia [2025] KEELRC 306 (KLR)

Brief Facts:

On piece-rate workers, from the case cited above, the court observed that a piece-rate worker is a worker whose pay is ascertained by the amount of work performed irrespective of the time occupied in its performance. 

 

Case Analysis: 

Besides the minimum pay, such a worker is entitled to any other agreed benefits based on the oral or written contract by and between the parties, or indeed any other benefit conferred by the law. According to the court, workers on piece-work arrangements are not entitled to leave as they are not obligated to report to work each day. Such workers hold the key to their off and leave days as they can rest whenever they opt not to go to work. 

 

Court's determination: 

The court held that Section 37 of the Employment Act does not refer to or apply to piece-work but to casual employment. In a piece-work-piece-rate arrangement, the relationship between the parties terminates at the end of each encounter and conclusion of each piece-work. No notice is therefore due at any point.

 

Ger the Full Case here

Redundancy: Juma Hardware Limited v Tungani & 2 others [2025]

Brief Facts & Analysis:

 

On redundancy, in Juma Hardware Limited v Tungani & 2 others [2025] KEELRC 317 (KLR), the Respondents had filed the suit at the Magistrate's court in which the trial court found the redundancy process unfair because the Appellant had failed to 'convince the Respondents of the need for the redundancy'.

 

On appeal, the Appellant submitted that the trial court imposed an undue burden on the Appellant, exceeding the requirements of the law. The law permits an employer to declare redundancies provided it complies with statutory obligations, which the Appellant stated it fully satisfied.

The obligation is to present valid reasons for the redundancy, not to ensure the affected employees are subjectively "satisfied" or "convinced" by those reasons. 

 

Court's determination: 

 

The appellate court found that the trial court overreached by stating that the Respondents ought to be satisfied with the reasons for the redundancy yet they were represented by the union which participated in the entire process. 

 

The requirement for the claimants to be personally issued with financial accounts statements when the union represented them was an overreach and beyond the requirements of sections 40 and 45(2) of the Employment Act. 

 

Full Case available Here

Performance Evaluation: A Case study of Owenga v First Community Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd [2025]

Background and Analysis:


In Owenga v First Community Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd [2025] KEELRC 49 (KLR), the Respondent conducted a performance review meeting for all staff collectively, under the guidance of a consultant.

However, the court found it unclear why such an appraisal was carried out in a group setting, given that employees reported to different supervisors, faced distinct challenges, and had varying levels of performance.

The court observed that this communal approach to performance evaluation was insensitive to the individual needs and unique difficulties faced by each employee. 

It also failed to recognize the importance of addressing cases on a personal basis.

Court's Holding:


Since performance targets were set individually, the court held that the evaluation process should have followed the same approach.

Furthermore, relying on a consultant to conduct the appraisal deprived employees of the opportunity to discuss their performance in a more private and constructive manner, particularly those whose work was under scrutiny.

The court emphasized that performance appraisals, by their very nature, are individual assessments and cannot be effectively conducted in a group setting. Expecting employees to present their performance history before a consultant and members of the Board, who were not directly involved in the organization’s day-to-day operations, was deemed inappropriate and contrary to best practices in performance evaluation.

On Dual employment and adherence to the principles of fairness and lawfulness during termination: The case of Nduuru v Cooperative Bank Limited [2025] KEELRC 572 (KLR)

Background/Brief Facts:

The Claimant filed a Memorandum of Claim dated 30 June 2016, alleging unfair and unlawful termination of employment by the Respondent. He sought declarations that his termination was unjustified, compensation for the alleged unfair/unlawful termination, leave pay, and salary in lieu of notice.

In the case, the Claimant was terminated for engaging in gainful employment while still working for the Respondent. 

Issues for determination:

• Whether the Claimant's termination was fair and lawful.
• Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment for 20 days of leave not taken.

Analysis of the case:
The court acknowledged the general principle that an employee is not prohibited from taking on additional employment unless explicitly restricted by law, company policy, an employment contract, or a Code of Conduct and Regulations. Employees may engage in other paying jobs outside their primary employer’s working hours, such as during annual leave, off days, public holidays, or weekends, particularly in the modern digital age.

However, in this case, the Claimant consistently clocked in at the Respondent’s premises from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on workdays. The Claimant did not clarify when he performed his other two jobs.


Court's Ruling:

The court found that working full-time for the Respondent while also receiving salaries from other employers strongly suggested that the Respondent’s time and resources may have been used for the benefit of other employers. It also indicated a lack of full commitment to the Respondent, as it would not be humanly possible to dedicate 100% effort to multiple employers simultaneously. 

While the court recognized the possibility of managing multiple jobs in the digital era, it gave weight to the employer’s concerns, especially given the Claimant’s failure to specify when he performed his additional work.

The Claimant admitted to providing supervision, consultation, and research services for MKU and Methodist Universities while employed by the Respondent.

Based on this admission, the court ruled that the Respondent had valid grounds for termination. 

Court's Holding

The Court ruled as follows:

• Fairness of Termination: The termination of the Claimant's employment was found to be fair and lawful.
• Leave Pay: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant for 20 days of leave not taken.
• Salary in Lieu of Notice: The claim for salary in lieu of notice was not granted

 Legal Principles

• Fair Termination: Employers must adhere to the principles of fairness and lawfulness in terminating an employee's contract.
• Leave Entitlement: Employees are entitled to payment for leave not taken, subject to the terms of their employment contract.

Significance of the case:

This case underscores the importance of adhering to fair procedures and justifiable reasons when terminating an employee's employment. It also highlights the entitlement of employees to compensation for accrued leave not taken.

• Full Judgement available: Click Here

SAMPLE ANSWER TO PETITION AND CROSS-PETITION

 **Disclaimer:** This is a sample and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney for specific legal guidance.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE**
**[Court Name]**
**[Case Number]**

**[Petitioner's Name]**
**Petitioner,**

**-VERSUS-**

**[Respondent's Name]**
**Respondent.**

**ANSWER TO PETITION AND CROSS-PETITION**

**I, [Respondent's Full Name], of [Respondent's Address],** in answer to the Petition filed herein by the Petitioner, say as follows:

1. **I admit** the allegations contained in paragraphs [list paragraph numbers] of the Petition.
2. **I deny** the allegations contained in paragraphs [list paragraph numbers] of the Petition.
3. **As to the remaining allegations** in the Petition, I neither admit nor deny them but call upon the Petitioner to prove the same.

**FURTHER SAYING:**

4. [State any affirmative defenses, such as:
    * Reconciliation attempts
    * Contributory fault of the Petitioner
    * Lack of jurisdiction]

**AND FURTHER SAYING BY WAY OF CROSS-PETITION:**

5. [State the grounds for the Respondent's own petition for divorce, such as:
    * Adultery
    * Cruelty
    * Desertion
    * Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage]

6. [State any other relief sought by the Respondent, such as:
    * Custody of children
    * Child support
    * Division of property
    * Spousal maintenance]

**WHEREFORE** the Respondent prays that:

* The Petition be dismissed.
* The Cross-Petition be granted.
* [State any other specific relief sought]
* And that the Respondent be granted such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and equitable.

**VERIFICATION**

**I, [Respondent's Full Name],** do solemnly declare that the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

**Dated:** [Date]

**[Respondent's Signature]**

**[Respondent's Printed Name]**

**[Address for Service]**

**[Contact Information]**

**[Attorney's Name and Contact Information (if applicable)]**

**Important Notes:**

* This is a very basic template. The specific content of your Answer and Cross-Petition will depend on the unique facts and circumstances of your case.
* It is crucial to consult with an attorney to ensure that your Answer and Cross-Petition are properly drafted and filed.
* This sample does not cover all possible scenarios and should not be considered legal advice.

**Remember:** This is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney for legal guidance on your specific situation.

Unfair termination arising from disciplinary proceedings: A Case study of Ndung’u v African Mission Health Care (K) [2025] KEELRC 432 (KLR)

 Background:

On disciplinary proceedings, in the case, the Claimant challenged the disciplinary process leading to his termination, arguing that he was given insufficient time to respond to the notice to show cause and to prepare for both the disciplinary hearing and the appeal. 

Analysis:

The court observed that the Claimant was given only one weekday and a weekend to respond to a notice outlining seven serious allegations. 

Given the complexity of the allegations, which required reviewing email communications and other records, the court found this timeframe unfair. Similarly, the 48-hour window for lodging an appeal against the dismissal was deemed unreasonable. 

Court's Ruling:

The court held that an employer must allow a dismissed employee sufficient time to prepare and file an appeal, as this process requires a thorough review of key documents, including the notice to show cause, minutes of the hearing, and the termination letter.

A 48-hour timeframe was deemed patently inadequate and unfair.

#KEL

CONSERVANCIES ON UNREGISTERED LAND - The Case of Osman & 164 Others v. Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 Others (Petition E006 of 2021) (Judgement)

CASE REVIEW: CONSERVANCIES ON UNREGISTERED LAND

1.0 Background/Brief facts of the case


The petitioners, residents of Merti Sub-County in Isiolo County, challenged the establishment of community conservancies on their unregistered community land. They alleged that the Northern Rangelands Trust (1st Respondent) and other parties had unlawfully created and managed conservancies without proper public participation, in violation of constitutional provisions on land ownership, environmental management, and community rights. The petitioners argued that the 2nd and 8th Respondents, who were statutorily mandated to oversee community land registration, had failed in their duties, allowing the encroachment and establishment of conservancies in violation of the law.

2.0 Issues for determination

• Whether the petitioners had the requisite locus standi to institute the petition.
• Whether the petition met the constitutional threshold.
• Whether the establishment of conservancies was done in breach of constitutional provisions and statutory laws.
• Whether the respondents violated the petitioners’ constitutional rights, including the right to property and public participation.
• Whether the court should grant the requested constitutional remedies.

 

3.0 Analysis of Findings

1. Whether the Petitioners had Locus Standi to Institute the Petition
The petitioners' asserted that they had a direct interest in the unregistered community land as members of the indigenous pastoralist community residing in Chari and Cherab wards. They relied on Articles 22, 40, and 63 of the Constitution, which protect land rights and allow individuals or groups to seek redress for constitutional violations. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioners failed to establish a direct link between the alleged constitutional violations and their personal interests. They argued that the claim was speculative and lacked concrete evidence. The court ruled that the petitioners had locus standi, emphasizing that their collective and communal interest in the land gave them the right to sue. The court found that the conservancies directly affected their land rights and economic activities and therefore Petitioners had judicial standing.

2. Whether the Petition Met the Constitutional Threshold
The petitioners contended that their petition met the required legal precision as established in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (1979) eKLR, as it clearly outlined the constitutional violations, statutory breaches, and supporting evidence. They relied on Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules, which sets out the requirements for constitutional petitions. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petition was vague, lacked specificity, and failed to provide a clear evidentiary link between the alleged violations and the respondents’ actions. The court held that the petition met the constitutional threshold as it was drafted with reasonable precision, cited specific constitutional provisions, and was supported by affidavit evidence and documentation.

3. Whether the Establishment of Conservancies Violated the Law
The petitioners claimed that the conservancies were established without public participation, violating Articles 10 and 69 of the Constitution, the Community Land Act, and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. They also alleged that the conservancies encroached on their grazing lands, burial sites, and water sources. The respondents maintained that public participation was conducted and that the conservancies were formed with community involvement. They argued that the conservancies promoted environmental conservation and economic benefits. The court found that the conservancies were established unlawfully, as there was no adequate public participation. The court ruled that compliance with public participation requirements is mandatory in land governance and environmental conservation matters.

4. Whether the Petitioners' Constitutional Rights Were Violated
The petitioners alleged violations of their right to property (Article 40), right to a clean and healthy environment (Article 42), and right to fair administrative action (Article 47). They argued that the conservancies restricted their land access, disrupted their livelihoods, and were imposed without their consent. The respondents denied any rights violations, arguing that the petitioners had equal opportunities to participate in the conservancies. They maintained that the land remained unregistered and that the conservancies were community-driven initiatives. The court ruled that the petitioners’ rights had been violated, particularly their property rights and the right to public participation. The court emphasized that unregistered community land is protected under Article 63 of the Constitution and that public participation is a fundamental governance principle.

5. Whether the Armed Rangers Operating in the Conservancies Were Legal
The petitioners claimed that the armed rangers deployed in the conservancies were illegal and posed security threats. They argued that private entities could not operate armed security forces without statutory authorization. The 1st respondent argued that the rangers were part of the National Police Reserve (NPR) and operated lawfully under the supervision of the Inspector General of Police. The court found that the armed rangers were illegally deployed, as no evidence was provided to prove that they were properly authorized by the Inspector General of Police. The court declared their presence unconstitutional and ordered their withdrawal.

4.0 Court's determination

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued the following key orders: Declared the conservancies unconstitutional due to lack of public participation.
Prohibited the respondents from establishing conservancies on unregistered community land.
Ordered the removal of armed rangers from the conservancies.
Directed the government to facilitate community land registration under the Community Land Act.  

5.0 Conclusion

The above recent landmark ruling is a wake-up call for businesses operating in community land and environmental conservation sectors. The court declared conservancy operations unconstitutional due to lack of public participation, unlawful land use, and failure to comply with legal frameworks including those concerned with proper stewardship of our environment.