[2019] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)

The court found that the redundancy process was properly conducted in accordance with Section 40 of the Employment Act, with adequate notice given to both the union and the employees. The evidence showed the claimants were engaged through a labour contractor and paid on a piece rate basis, and the claimants failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: David Kwoba; Claimant: Fredrick Onyango Okaka; Claimant: Nicholas Malenya; Claimant: Wycliffe Mutai; Claimant: Timothy Muddy Mutsoli; Claimant: Kenneth Mukangala Kagali; Respondent: United Millers Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 225,224,226,229 & 254 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for claimants in part
Judges
DO Ogal, MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Severance Pay, Employment Status, Labour Contracts, Collective Bargaining, Terminal Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Severance Pay Employment Status Labour Contracts Collective Bargaining Terminal Benefits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kwoba

Claimant

Fredrick Onyango Okaka

Claimant

Nicholas Malenya

Claimant

Wycliffe Mutai

Claimant

Timothy Muddy Mutsoli

Claimant

Kenneth Mukangala Kagali

Claimant

United Millers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees of the respondent or of a labour contractor.
  2. 2 Whether the redundancy process complied with statutory requirements under the Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to severance pay and accrued leave as recommended by the County Labour Officer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the redundancy process was properly conducted in accordance with Section 40 of the Employment Act, with adequate notice given to both the union and the employees. The evidence showed the claimants were engaged through a labour contractor and paid on a piece rate basis, and the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove longer periods of service or direct employment by the respondent. The court adopted the County Labour Officer's findings and recommendations, awarding the claimants severance pay and accrued leave as calculated in the Labour Officer's report, and dismissed claims for additional damages or benefits beyond those recommendations.

Court Disposition

judgment for claimants in part

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimants severance pay and accrued leave as per the County Labour Officer's recommendations.
  • Respondent to pay claimants' costs.