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

Odhiambo v Samani Construction Limited (Cause 2100 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 12689 (KLR) (29 September 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 12689 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
12689
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 12689 (KLR)
Decided
29 September 2022
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeUnfair Termination of EmploymentPostureClaimant initiated the claim by a memorandum of claim filed on October 18, 2017.CoramJK GAKERI
The court found that the claimant's employment transitioned from casual to term and was entitled to leave and rest days. The court determined that the claimant absconded duty.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a casual employee by the respondent. His employment was terminated on September 20, 2016, and he alleged it was unfair. The claimant and his colleague were involved in a fight, and the claimant left the workplace.

Issues

  • Whether the claimant's employment transitioned from casual to term.
  • Whether the claimant's employment was terminated by the respondent or he absconded duty.

Reasoning

The court applied section 37 of the Employment Act, which states that a casual employee who works for a period or number of continuous working days equivalent to one month or more, or performs work that cannot reasonably be expected to be completed within three months or more, is deemed to have a term contract of service. The court also distinguished desertion from unauthorised absence.

Outcome

The court dismissed the claimant's case.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
Cases cited (2)
  • John Muturi Wanjiku v Samani Construction Co Ltd (2015) eKLR
  • Seabolo v Belgravia Hotel (1997) 6 BLLR 829 (CCMA)
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case