[2017] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. The Claimant was not issued with a proper notice of intended redundancy, there was no consultation with the labour office or the Claimant, and the Respondent did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Hamisi Madzungu; Respondent: Pride Inn Hotels & Investment Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 457 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed; termination declared unfair; monetary and non-monetary reliefs granted.
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Severance Pay, Notice Pay, Paternity Leave, Compensation for Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unfair Termination Severance Pay Notice Pay Paternity Leave Compensation for Dismissal

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamisi Madzungu

Claimant

Pride Inn Hotels & Investment Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment on grounds of redundancy was lawful and fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent complied with the procedural requirements under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to severance pay, notice pay, compensation for unfair termination, and paternity leave pay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. The Claimant was not issued with a proper notice of intended redundancy, there was no consultation with the labour office or the Claimant, and the Respondent did not demonstrate the criteria used to select the Claimant for redundancy among 13 cleaners. The Claimant was not paid his terminal dues at the time of exit, contrary to statutory requirements. The court held that these failures rendered the termination unfair. The Claimant was entitled to severance pay, one month’s salary in lieu of notice, and compensation for unfair...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed; termination declared unfair; monetary and non-monetary reliefs granted.

Orders

  • Termination was unfair.
  • Respondent to pay Claimant Kshs. 134,976 as compensation for unfair termination (12 months' salary).