SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Katore v Rabco Agencies Limited (Cause 571 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1153 (KLR) (13 May 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 1153 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1153
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 1153 (KLR)
Decided
13 May 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
Holding

The Court finds the claimant was a casual employee and not a service subject to minimum statutory terms. The claimant's claims and prayers are dismissed.

Facts

The claimant, Cosmas Katore, alleged wrongful termination by the respondent, Rabco Agencies Limited, on May 14, 2015. He claimed severance pay, annual leave payment, and other compensation. The respondent denied these claims, stating Katore was a casual laborer.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant was a casual employee or a service subject to minimum statutory terms as envisaged in section 37 of the Employment Act, 2007.
  2. Whether the claimant's employment was continuous or intermittent

Reasoning

The claimant did not exhibit temporary port movement control permits for the entire period he alleged he worked without a break. The permits show he was engaged by the respondent sporadically in various capacities as casual, DR, clerk, or driver. The Court finds the claimant's employment was intermittent and not continuous.

Outcome

Judgment for the respondent, Rabco Agencies Limited, dismissing the claimant's suit.

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondent against the claimant for dismissal of the suit.
  • Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case