[2021] KEELRC 426 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 426 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements set out in Section 40 of the Employment Act when declaring the claimant redundant. Specifically, the respondent did not provide the claimant with one month's prior written notice or notify the Labour Officer, nor did it...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 426 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: James Kinyua Kibiru; Respondent: H. Young & Co. (E.A) Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2088 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; redundancy declared unfair and procedurally flawed; monetary and non-monetary reliefs granted.
Judges
AN Mwaure
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Severance Pay, Notice Period, Leave Entitlement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unfair Termination Severance Pay Notice Period Leave Entitlement

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kinyua Kibiru

Claimant

H. Young & Co. (E.A) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the claimant's employment amounted to an unfair redundancy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 40 of the Employment Act.
  3. 3 What remedies, if any, the claimant is entitled to for the alleged unfair redundancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements set out in Section 40 of the Employment Act when declaring the claimant redundant. Specifically, the respondent did not provide the claimant with one month's prior written notice or notify the Labour Officer, nor did it consult or explain the criteria for redundancy. The redundancy was therefore procedurally unfair and unlawful. The court held that the claimant was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice, severance pay for five years, and payment for unutilized leave days. Claims for general damages and bonus allowance were declined due to lack of justification and proof. The total...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; redundancy declared unfair and procedurally flawed; monetary and non-monetary reliefs granted.

Orders

  • The claimant is awarded Kshs. 337,665 for unfair redundancy, less any amount already paid.
  • The claimant is awarded costs and interest at court rates.