Adtones East Africa, which markets mobile audio advertising that turns call-connection time into an advertising channel, faces an unresolved dispute with former Business Development Manager Lydia Emmah Namayi.
The court rejected the company’s attempt to stop her claim, ruling that evidence must establish whether she was an employee or independent contractor.
A Kenyan court has rejected Adtones East Africa Limited’s attempt to block a former business development manager’s employment claim over an alleged salary cut, unpaid commissions and termination.
Justice Bernard Manani of the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that the dispute between Lydia Emmah Namayi and the advertising company could not be settled through a preliminary objection.
The judge said the court needed evidence before determining whether the parties had an employment or independent contractor relationship.
The ruling, delivered on October 8, 2026, dismissed Adtones’ objection with costs to Namayi.
It leaves the underlying financial and employment claims unresolved.
Salary Dispute
Namayi filed her claim on March 24, 2025, alleging that Adtones hired her as Business Development Manager.
She said an offer letter dated April 30, 2024, set her monthly salary at KSh220,000.
Her responsibilities allegedly included rebuilding strained client relationships, promoting products and maintaining regular communication with customers.
She was also expected to generate revenue, execute campaigns and follow up outstanding payments.
According to Namayi, the agreement provided for three months of probation before confirmation.
She alleged that confirmation entitled her to medical cover, which the company never provided.
She further accused Adtones of unilaterally reducing her monthly salary from KSh220,000 to KSh75,000.
The alleged reduction cut her earnings by KSh145,000 monthly, although the court has not determined whether it occurred unlawfully.
Namayi also claimed that Adtones terminated her services through a letter dated November 28, 2024.
She alleged that the company acted without prior notice or payment in lieu of notice.
The dispute extended beyond her monthly salary and termination.
Namayi claimed the parties had agreed to a seven per cent commission on business she generated, but the company allegedly failed to pay.
These allegations remain unproven in the ruling, which addressed jurisdiction rather than the merits of her claim.
Jurisdiction Fight
Adtones challenged the proceedings, arguing that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction.
The company maintained that Namayi was an independent contractor, not an employee.
It relied on Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act to challenge the court’s authority.
The company’s argument placed the nature of the working relationship at the centre of the dispute.
The distinction mattered because Namayi’s claim depended on her assertion that the parties had an employment relationship.
Adtones, however, wanted the court to accept its contractor classification before the substantive case proceeded.
Justice Manani examined whether that disagreement qualified for determination through a preliminary objection.
He relied on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696, a leading authority on the legal threshold for such objections.
The principle requires a preliminary objection to raise a pure point of law.
Where deciding an objection requires investigating disputed facts, the court cannot simply resolve those questions at the preliminary stage.
Evidence Matters
The judge found that Namayi had presented material supporting her account of employment.
This included what appeared to be an offer letter setting out her position and monthly salary.
The court also considered preliminary material concerning communication about the non-renewal of her probationary term.
That communication purportedly informed Namayi that her probation would not continue beyond November 2024.
The documents did not conclusively prove an employment relationship. However, they demonstrated why the parties’ competing accounts required proper examination.
The judge noted that Adtones’ counsel had argued the parties were independent contractors.
However, the company presented no preliminary material supporting that contention.
The resulting controversy could not be resolved by accepting one side’s assertions over the other’s.
The court instead concluded that evidence was necessary to establish the true nature of the relationship.
Justice Manani said the court could not determine the issue “with any degree of certainty” at that stage.
Resolving it immediately would require examining contested facts without testing the evidence through a full trial.
Objection Dismissed
The judge ultimately declared Adtones’ preliminary objection, dated November 28, 2025, “devoid of merit”.
He dismissed it with costs to Namayi, allowing the proceedings to continue.
The ruling does not establish that Adtones unlawfully reduced Namayi’s salary or terminated her employment.
Nor does it confirm her entitlement to commissions, medical benefits or compensation.
Instead, it establishes that the jurisdictional question cannot be resolved prematurely through this objection.
READ ALSO: Kenya Power Ordered to Pay Former Manager KSh2.4 Million After Years in Acting Role
The substantive dispute remains to be determined through the appropriate proceedings.
For Namayi, the decision removes an immediate procedural obstacle to pursuing her claim.
For Adtones, its contractor argument has failed to end the proceedings before the evidence is examined.
The central question remains whether Namayi was an employee or an independent contractor.
That determination will shape how the court approaches the disputed salary, benefits, commissions and termination claims.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
