Court Clarifies Limits on Consultants Seeking Employee Benefits in Landmark Ruling

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has issued a clear ruling on the difference between a consultant and an employee, and the circumstances under which someone hired as a consultant can pursue employment related benefits.

In a judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the court examined a dispute involving a project management consultant who sued a construction company for Ksh5.31 million. The consultant claimed he was entitled to unpaid earnings and additional benefits after his engagement with the company ended.

According to the claimant, the consultancy agreement stipulated a monthly fee of Ksh180,000. He sought Ksh1.98 million in unpaid earnings covering the 11 months he said he worked for the firm, plus Ksh720,000 in house allowance and other employment related claims.

The company rejected the claim, insisting the arrangement was a pure consultancy and not an employer employee relationship. It further stated that the claimant had stopped providing services to the company.

The consultant countered that the company had frustrated his work, withheld payments, and effectively ended the engagement without notice or adherence to proper procedure.

In its defence, the company maintained that the engagement was governed by a commercial contract. It argued that the claimant could not seek employment benefits without first proving that an employment relationship existed.

After reviewing the written agreement and the evidence presented, Justice Hellen Wasilwa noted that the contract consistently referred to the claimant as a consultant. The agreement provided for consultancy fees of Ksh180,000 per month, payable only upon submission of invoices that detailed the services performed in the preceding month.

The court observed that the agreement was to remain in force until the project was completed or until it was terminated earlier. It also found that the claimant had failed to submit the necessary documents to support his claim for unpaid consultancy fees.

Justice Wasilwa ruled that the claimant had not established an employer employee relationship with the company and therefore could not claim the benefits he sought on that basis. The court concluded that the matter concerned an alleged breach of contract rather than an employment relationship and dismissed the claim in full.