[2017] KEELRC 505 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 505 (KLR)

The Court found that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the redundancy was genuine or that it followed the statutory procedure required under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. There was no evidence of diminished business returns or proper notice to the Grievant, his union, or the Labour Ministry. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 505 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Ali Barbour’s Cave Restaurant
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 415 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed; redundancy declared unfair; compensation awarded.
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Compensation for Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unfair Termination Compensation for Termination

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

Parties

Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Ali Barbour’s Cave Restaurant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the redundancy of the Grievant was substantively and procedurally fair under the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the Grievant is entitled to compensation for unfair termination.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent complied with statutory requirements for redundancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the redundancy was genuine or that it followed the statutory procedure required under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. There was no evidence of diminished business returns or proper notice to the Grievant, his union, or the Labour Ministry. The Conciliator's refusal to recommend compensation was based on a misinterpretation of the law, as redundancy can result in unfair termination if not properly executed. The Court held that the redundancy was unfair and awarded the Grievant compensation equivalent to five months' gross salary. Other claims had been settled by agreement between the parties.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed; redundancy declared unfair; compensation awarded.

Orders

  • Termination of the Grievant’s contract by way of redundancy is declared unfair.
  • The Respondent shall pay the Grievant, through the Claimant, the equivalent of 5 months’ gross salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 94,560.