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

Wanyoike v Transcentury PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E961 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 153 (KLR) (30 January 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 153 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
153
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 153 (KLR)
Decided
30 January 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPostureAppeal from the original trialCoramBOM MANANI
Holding

The court has jurisdiction to entertain the action and the dispute between the parties. The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent at the time of the closure of his last contract of service.

Facts

The Claimant, Stephen Wanyoike, alleges he was an employee of Transcentury PLC, working on fixed-term contracts. He claims the last contract was terminated through eluxion of time in September 2022. The Respondent, Transcentury PLC, denies the employment relationship and the obligation to pay terminal dues.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the action.
  2. Whether the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent at the time of the closure of his last contract of service.
  3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs that he seeks through these proceedings.

Reasoning

The court determined that the employment relationship existed and was concluded in Kenya, giving it jurisdiction to hear the case. The evidence showed an employment relation between the Claimant and the Respondent.

Outcome

The court found in favor of the Claimant, finding jurisdiction and employment status.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Act
  • Employment Act
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