Is Your “Casual” Worker Really Casual?

Case Study: Ramzan v Misango (Appeal E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3083 (KLR) (6 November 2025) (Judgment)

Background

For six years, Gladys Misango worked as a house servant for Rahim Ibrahim Ramzan in Kisumu. In March 2024, that relationship ended abruptly. What seemed like a simple domestic arrangement quickly escalated into a full legal battle when the Magistrates’ Court awarded Ms. Misango Kshs. 683,328. The employer appealed, leading to a higher court ruling that clarified critical points of law.

THE EMPLOYER’S DEFENCE:

• “She Was a Casual Worker. “Argument: Ms. Misango was not a formal, permanent employee. She worked intermittently—”once in a while for a few days in a month.” This, he contended, placed her outside the scope of stringent employment protections.
• “She Absconded. “He did not terminate her employment. She voluntarily deserted her duties in March 2024 and never returned. This constituted gross misconduct under the Employment Act, justifying the end of the engagement without notice or a lengthy process
• “The Award is Unjust and Excessive. “The massive award for claims like underpayment and leave pay was unreasonable. It was based on a mischaracterization of her employment status and imposed burdensome statutory obligations that did not apply to such an informal arrangement.

THE EMPLOYEE’S CLAIM :

• “I Was a Permanent Employee. “She worked a fixed, daily schedule from 8:00 am, initially for the employer and later also for his sister, for a monthly salary of Kshs. 4,000. A six-year engagement with a regular wage constitutes permanent employment, not casual work.
• “I Was Unfairly Dismissed Without Due Process. “She fell ill, informed the employer’s household, and was later refused work when she tried to return. The employer made no attempt to contact her, issue a warning, or conduct any form of disciplinary hearing. You cannot claim “abscondment” without taking basic steps to ascertain an employee’s whereabouts.
• “I Am Claiming My Legal Entitlements, Not a Bonus. “The monetary claims were not punitive. They were simply the arithmetic result of enforcing the law; Her Kshs. 4,000 monthly wage was far below the government-mandated minimum wage for her job and location, She never received the compulsory 15% housing allowance. She worked for years without taking—or being paid for—her annual leave.

The Court’s Ruling

• On Employment Status: A casual employee is paid daily for engagements not exceeding 24 hours. A monthly salary over six years is equal to permanent employment. The “casual worker” argument was dismissed.
• On Fair Termination: The court established a vital precedent for proving desertion. An employer must demonstrate active steps (calls, letters, a hearing) to locate the employee and follow due process before terminating for abscondment. The employer’s inaction here rendered the termination procedurally unfair.
• On the Financial Awards: The court agreed with the employee on principle. The minimum wage is a legal floor. Using official Wages Orders, it calculated the vast gap between what was paid and what the law required. Awards for house allowance and leave were upheld as non-waivable statutory rights.

The Final Adjusted Outcome:

While the court corrected one error (gratuity is not automatic) and slightly reduced the compensation, the core financial penalties for non-compliance remained devastating. The final award was Kshs. 569,717.48.