[2017] KEELRC 1044 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1044 (KLR)

The court found that while the redundancy was based on genuine economic reasons, the respondent failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. Specifically, there was no evidence of proper notice to the union or the Labour Office, nor was the Labour Office involved...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1044 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elijah Mwova Kathuru; Respondent: Tahir Sheikh Said Transporters Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 473 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; termination declared unfair on procedural grounds.
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Trade Union Consultation, Notice Period, Severance Pay
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unfair Termination Trade Union Consultation Notice Period Severance Pay

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elijah Mwova Kathuru

Applicant

Tahir Sheikh Said Transporters Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with the statutory procedure for redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair due to procedural defects.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, notice pay, outstanding leave, and other remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the redundancy was based on genuine economic reasons, the respondent failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. Specifically, there was no evidence of proper notice to the union or the Labour Office, nor was the Labour Office involved in the consultative process. The respondent also failed to demonstrate the criteria used for selecting employees for redundancy and did not allow employees to serve their notice period, instead suggesting payment in lieu of notice. The letters of termination offered severance pay but did not show that all dues were paid before termination. These procedural defects rendered the...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; termination declared unfair on procedural grounds.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay each claimant the equivalent of 4 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination.
  • Respondent to pay 1 month salary in lieu of notice to each claimant.