For five years, Elizabeth Odhiambo Oduor worked as a housemaid for Dr Shalin Vora before the latter informed her that her services were no longer needed and subsequently terminated her contract.
Employed on July 9, 2007 and sacked on June 4, 2012, Elizabeth said in court papers that she did her job diligently and at no point did she go against what her employer wanted.
When she was fired, she decided to inform her union about what had transpired. The organisation asked Dr Vora to pay her terminal dues.
“On May 7, 2012, the claimant’s union official visited the respondent’s house to settle the matter, but the respondent refused and only paid the claimant Sh60,000 and told the union to go to court,” court papers read.
Dr Vora told the court that during Elizabeth’s employment period, she received pay on time and was treated fairly and respectfully.
He said that before he could send her packing, he had written a letter informing the house help of his plans. As part of her argument in court, Elizabeth admitted that she was informed and that the letter of intention to terminate her services was to take effect on April 24, 2012.
“An employment relationship is terminable by either party, provided the party initiating the termination conforms with the law and procedure of termination of services. That is to say the party initiating the termination, where it’s an employer, ought to give reason and notice for the termination as per the contract of employment or as provided in the Employment Act,” court documents read.
It was clear that Elizabeth was not being sacked on account of any misconduct or dereliction of duty. A disciplinary hearing was therefore not necessary.
In the ruling, Justice Jorum Nelson said that all Dr Vora needed to do was to comply with the provisions of section 40 of the Employment Act concerning redundancy.
“The employee is further entitled to payment of leave due in cash and one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The employer shall further pay such employee severance pay at the rate of not less than fifteen days’ pay for each year of service,” the court documents read.
In court, Dr Vora claimed that he had already paid Elizabeth Sh60,000 as terminal dues and that she executed a discharge voucher to that effect. Elizabeth admitted having received the payment, but stated that it was not enough.
“The discharge voucher was not exhibited in the pleadings to enable the court to ascertain the kind of compensation. There is also the claim by the claimant (Elizabeth) of underpayment, as overtime and annual leave,” the documents revealed.
The court awarded Elizabeth a total of Sh119,473 as follows: One month’s salary in lieu of leave, Sh8,723, and Severance pay at 15 days for each completed year of service, Sh17,400.
Other payments issued as per the court include: Salary underpayment Sh34,747, public holidays Sh25,520 and annual leave for four years Sh24,360, leading to a total of Sh119,473.
Since Dr Vora had already paid Sh60,000, he was asked to pay the remainder of Sh59,473.
In her argument in court, Ms Jumba said that in September 2010, she was employed by Andeyo and her monthly salary was Sh5,500.
However, when she reported back in July 2014, her salary was raised to Sh7,000, and she continued working until the termination through a phone message.
In court, she argued that the salary was below the minimum salary under the Regulation of Wages Order.
“She was not paid house allowance and the employer never remitted NSSF and NHIF contributions for her to the relevant agencies,” court records read.
Jumba argued that she was not accorded any fair hearing before the termination. She therefore averred that the termination was unfair and prayed for the relief sought in her suit. When slapped with the petition and asked to file a defence, Andeyo did not.
In court, Andeyo’s ex-employee was seeking the following orders: A declaration that the termination of her employment and/or dismissal was unfair and in breach of her contract of employment.
Secondly, she wanted a declaration that Andeyo fundamentally breached her statutory obligations under the Constitution of Kenya and the Employment Act, 2007, and she also wanted an order directing and/or compelling the Respondents to pay her Sh526,503.
She also sought an order directing and/or compelling her former employer to issue a Certificate of Service in accordance with section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007, plus any other reliefs as the court would deem just and expedient.
Under the argument of unfair termination, Justice Onesmus Makau said that under section 45 (2) of the Employment Act, termination of employees' contract of service is unfair if the employer fails to prove that it was grounded on a valid and fair reason, and that a fair procedure was followed.
“The Respondent neither filed a defence nor tendered evidence, and as such, the burden of proving valid reasons for the termination and that a fair procedure was followed has not been discharged. Consequently, I return that the termination of the claimant’s services herein was unfair within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act,” the Judge said.
The Judge said that the termination of the contract was unfair and he awarded the nanny a one-month salary in lieu of notice plus three months’ salary as compensation for the unfair termination, considering her service for over five years without any disciplinary issue and also the fact that she did not contribute to the dismissal through misconduct.
“The award is based on the minimum salary under the Legal Notice No. 116 of 2015 being Sh10954.70 per month,” court documents read.
Terming the claim for the house allowance as exaggerated, the Judge went ahead and awarded her a one-year house allowance at the rate of 15 per cent of the basic pay of Sh10,954, which equals Sh19,718.
“Likewise, I award the claimant the claim for salary under payment for only 12 months under the same legal Notice No. 116 of 2015. Hence, Sh20954.70 – 7000 + 3954.70 x 12 = Sh47456,” the documents further read.
“I further award the claimant service pay for the 5 years of complete service at the rate of 15 days’ pay per year. Hence 15/26 x Sh10954.70 x 5 = Sh31600,” the documents added.
This meant that the nanny was paid a total of Sh142,593 due to wrongful termination.
What the law says
Labour law advocate Mr William Wafula notes that many Kenyans still think of nannies, often called ayahs or house helps, as informal hires. In truth, the law sees them differently. “The Employment Act of 2007 defines an employee broadly, and that definition includes nannies,” he explains. “That means they are not casuals to be paid at whim. They earn a salary under a contract of service and are entitled to full rights under the Act, including minimum wages, leave and even protection from unfair dismissal.”
For employers, this legal recognition translates into very specific obligations. The Employment Act, together with the latest Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2024, sets out clear minimum standards. In Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and other urban centres, the minimum wage for a nanny is currently Sh16,113.75 per month. They are also entitled to overtime pay hourly, paid annual leave of 21 working days after 12 months of service, three months of maternity leave, and at least seven days of sick leave with full pay each year. Working hours are capped at 52 hours a week, roughly eight hours a day over six days, while termination procedures require 30 days' notice or pay in lieu, unless there is proven gross misconduct after a fair hearing.
“Too many households ignore these obligations,” Mr Wafula explains. “But when a dispute reaches court, the law is very clear.” Courts are guided by two principles: substantive fairness, whether there was a valid reason such as misconduct, incapacity or redundancy and procedural fairness, meaning whether the nanny was given notice and a fair chance to respond. Terminating a nanny simply because she is pregnant, for instance, is unlawful discrimination.
The awareness of these rights has been growing, thanks in part to advocacy by unions like the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers (KUDHEIHA). However, Mr Wafula has observed that nannies are increasingly aware of their rights, unlike in previous years. The most common complaints, he says, include unpaid wages and overtime, sudden dismissals without notice, mistreatment, and in some tragic cases, sexual harassment. “We even see claims of constructive dismissal where the nanny is harassed or pushed to resign,” he notes.
The courts take such cases seriously. Compensation is assessed under Section 49 of the Employment Act, and can include up to 12 months’ gross salary, unpaid leave or wages, and general damages for mistreatment. “In harassment cases, for example, awards can range from Sh100,000 to Sh500,000,” Mr Wafula says. The court caps at equity, not on punitive damages, but the party involved has to pay interest plus legal costs.
In live-in arrangements, the situation may be complex if a case arises. “When the nanny resides in the home of the employer, it becomes difficult to outline the working hours, privacy or the entitlements,” Mr Wafula explains. The court interprets this as a 10-hour daily maximum, but proving overtime is hard without written logs.
“Again, if nanny cameras are used, they can land you in problems,” he says. Article 31 of the Constitution and the Data Protection Act, 2019 require consent to avoid invasion of privacy claims. Otherwise, employers risk privacy violation claims.
Some employers assume that hiring a nanny informally shields them from liability. Yet the law recognises even verbal contracts, and in the absence of a written one, the law presumes a monthly contract with a 28-day notice requirement according to section 10 of the Employment Act. The burden of proof falls on the employer, and without written agreements, courts often side with the nanny.
For Mr Wafula, one of the most pressing gaps is how few employers formalise their obligations. “Register your nanny with NSSF and SHA, deduct taxes, issue payslips, and keep records,” he advises. SHA- the Social Health Authority scheme that recently replaced NHIF requires employers to contribute 2.75 per cent of gross salary, just like with any other employee. Non-compliance attracts stiff penalties, including fines of up to Sh2 million or three years’ imprisonment or both.
The law also stretches to cover work-related injuries. If one is injured or dies in line of duty, it is no longer an employment dispute, but the Work Injury Benefits Act (WIBA) of 2007 that sets in. First, employers must provide immediate medical care such as handling a first aid situation and cover treatment costs until recovery.
The incident is later reported to the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSH), who will then assess damages for compensation, mostly pegged at 96 weeks’ earnings for temporary total disablement, a lump sum that is equivalent to 48 months' salary for permanent partial. And where it involves fatalities, a 60 months' salary to dependents is applicable.
So, what should a prudent employer do to avoid future litigation? Mr Wafula advises that everything be put down in written form and records kept.
“Draft a written contract outlining duties and pay hours. Keep attendance and payment records for five years. Document all warnings pertaining to performance issues and follow procedure when terminating such as paying final dues, leave and service pay.”
Additionally, avoid discriminatory practices, especially around pregnancy and maternity-based dismissal.
Despite these clear laws, the gap between policy and practice remains wide. “Most households hire informally,” Mr Wafula notes. “But times are changing. Litigation is on the rise because nannies are more aware of their rights, unions are stepping up, and legal aid is more accessible.”
Looking ahead, Mr Wafula argues that Kenya needs a more robust domestic workers' law. “We should consider a dedicated law or even a parliamentary Act to address the unique challenges in this sector,” he says. “Domestic work is unlike any other job. It involves privacy, trust, and often vulnerability. That calls for special protections.”
