Dual Employment: The Case of Nduuru v Cooperative Bank Limited [2025] KEELRC 572 (KLR)

Brief Facts:

On dual employment, from the case cited above, the Claimant was terminated for engaging in gainful employment while still working for the Respondent. 

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.

Case Analysis:
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. 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.

Court's Findings: 

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. 

 

To download the full case: Click Here 

Titles Acquired Irregularly : The Supreme Court case of Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (21 April 2023) (Judgment).

Brief Facts/Background

In April 2023, the Supreme Court of Kenya delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021) [2023] KESC 30 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (21 April 2023) (Judgment). This case has significant implications for property transactions and the protection of bona fide purchasers in Kenya. 

The case arose when Dina Management Limited purchased a parcel of land in Mombasa. The company claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of any irregularities.

However, the title to the land was contested by the County Government of Mombasa and other respondents, who alleged that the title had been obtained fraudulently. The core of the dispute centered on whether the protection typically afforded to bona fide purchasers should apply in cases where the title was obtained through irregular or illegal means.

Issues for Determination

1. Whether the Protection for Bona Fide Purchasers Applies to Irregular or Illegal Titles:

The court needed to determine if a purchaser who acquires property without notice of any irregularities should be protected under the bona fide purchaser doctrine, even if the title was obtained through fraudulent or illegal means.

2. The Level of Due Diligence Required:

The court also had to consider the extent of due diligence required to support a claim of being a bona fide purchaser, and what steps buyers must take to verify the legitimacy of a property's title.

Court’s Determination:

The Supreme Court in the case ruled that the protection offered to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice does not apply if the title to the property was obtained irregularly or illegally. The court emphasized that buyers have a duty to conduct thorough due diligence when purchasing property. 

Conclusion:

This judgement shifts the onus of proving the validity of the land title to the buyer, underscoring the importance of ensuring that the title is free from any encumbrances or irregularities. The court's decision is based on the principle that illegally or irregularly obtained titles cannot be defended under the bona fide purchaser doctrine.

The court highlighted that buyers must take active steps to investigate the history and legitimacy of the title before completing the purchase. This includes checking for any existing disputes, encumbrances, or legal challenges related to the property.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence, accountability, and the protection of property rights.

Buyers must now take proactive steps to verify the legitimacy of property titles before completing transactions, ensuring that they are not unknowingly acquiring irregular or illegal titles. This landmark judgment has important implications for property investors, legal practitioners, and stakeholders in Kenya's property market.

 

Full Case available here

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.