https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1618

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NYERI** **CAUSE NO. E054 OF 2024** **KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL** **FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS……………………………………..CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **NEW MURANDARIA FARMERS** **CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY………………..……………………...RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Claimant instituted the present suit on behalf of 16 grievants, through an Amended Memorandum of Claim dated 27th February 2025. The Claimant avers that it has a mutual agreement with the Respondent founded upon a Recognition Agreement and successive Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), the latest of which covered the period from 1st October 2018 to 30th September 2020. 2. According to the Claimant, the parties maintained harmonious industrial relations until the Respondent declined to negotiate and conclude a new CBA for the period 2020/2022, prompting the registration of a trade dispute before the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. 3. The Claimant avers that the dispute remained unresolved at the conciliation stage, necessitating the filing of a suit before this Court. It further contends that upon being served with the court summons, the Respondent convened a meeting of all employees and warned them to withdraw the CBA dispute pending before the Court, failing which they would face dire consequences. 4. The Claimant further states that following court proceedings in respect of the CBA dispute on 27th November 2024, the Respondent issued a general notice of redundancy dated 28th November 2024. 5. It is the Claimant’s position that the notice neither identified the employees likely to be affected nor specified the departments targeted by the intended redundancy. Further, the notice did not disclose the criteria to be applied in selecting employees for redundancy. 6. The Claimant also avers that on 26th December 2024, 16 employees were issued with individual redundancy letters dated 2nd December 2024. According to the Claimant, these letters were never served upon it. That further, notwithstanding that the general redundancy notice had indicated that only 10 employees would be affected, ultimately 16 employees were declared redundant. 7. The Claimant states that it only became aware of the individual redundancy letters after the grievants brought them to its attention. 8. The Claimant further avers that the redundancy letters contained computations of the grievants’ terminal dues. While it agrees with the Respondent’s calculations relating to overtime, salary arrears, accrued leave days, and acting allowances, it disputes the computation of notice pay, severance pay, and leave pay. 9. It is the Claimant’s further contention that despite awaiting payment of their terminal benefits, the grievants were not paid and consequently left employment empty-handed after rendering diligent service to the Respondent. 10. On the basis of the foregoing, the Claimant seeks a declaration that the redundancy of the 16 grievants was unlawful and unfair, an order withdrawing the redundancy letters, and reinstatement of the grievants. In the alternative, the Claimant seeks an award of terminal benefits comprising 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice pursuant to Clause 3 of the CBA, accrued leave days, salary arrears arising from previous CBAs, unpaid overtime, severance pay, transport allowance, acting allowance, compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary for unlawful redundancy, and costs of the suit. 11. The Respondent opposed the Amended Memorandum of Claim through a Reply dated 25th April 2025, contending that the claims are false and misguided. The Respondent denies threatening the grievants with dire consequences should they fail to withdraw *Nyeri ELRC Cause No. 003 of 2024* and further denies that the redundancy notice was issued in reaction to the proceedings conducted on 27th November 2024. According to the Respondent, the decision to declare redundancy was arrived at independently of the court proceedings and was informed solely by strategic and operational considerations. 12. The Respondent further avers that at the time the general redundancy notice was issued, neither the selection criteria nor the final list of affected employees had been conclusively determined. It maintains that the process was still under review and that the number of affected employees ultimately increased from the initially anticipated 10 to 16. 13. The Respondent further contends that it had already computed and commenced payment of the terminal dues payable to the affected employees and denies that they left employment without any payments, maintaining that all dues would ultimately be settled. 14. The Respondent further states that some of the affected employees had served for approximately 26 years and were due for retirement in 2024 and 2025. 15. The Respondent maintains that it complied with all legal requirements governing a redundancy process, including the issuance of prior notice to the affected employees and the application of a fair selection process. It contends that the allegations of procedural impropriety are unfounded. Consequently, the Respondent has urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit with costs and to find that the redundancy was lawful, fair, and justified by budgetary constraints, overstaffing, and operational requirements. It has further asked the Court to find that the redundancy dues were properly computed in accordance with Section 40 of the Employment Act. 16. The matter proceeded for hearing on 15th April 2026, during which both sides called oral evidence in support of their respective cases. **Claimant’s Case** 1. All 16 grievants testified in support of their respective claims. Each adopted his or her witness statement as evidence in chief and produced the list and bundle of documents filed on their behalf as exhibits before the Court. 2. The common thread running through the grievants’ testimony is that they were employed by the Respondent on diverse dates and in various capacities and that, on 2nd December 2024, they were each issued with redundancy letters informing them that their positions had been declared redundant and that their last day of employment would be 31st December 2024. 3. The grievants further testified that the Respondent declared them redundant without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Clause 5 of the parties’ CBA. They maintained that they were entitled to notice pay, severance pay under Clause 5 of the said CBA, and transport allowance, all of which had not been properly settled. 4. The grievants further contended that the Respondent failed to disclose the criteria used in selecting employees for redundancy. They further testified that following termination of their employment, the Respondent neither paid them their dues as provided for under the CBA nor complied with its obligations thereunder, and instead proceeded to recruit new employees to perform the duties previously undertaken by them. 5. Consequently, the grievants urged the Court to allow their respective claims as prayed in the Amended Memorandum of Claim. **Respondent’s Case** 1. The Respondent called one witness, ***Julius Irungu Mwangi***, who testified as RW1. Mr. Irungu identified himself as the Chairman of the Respondent. Equally, he adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced the Respondent’s list and bundle of documents as exhibits before the Court. 2. Mr. Irungu testified that the redundancy process, which commenced on 28th November 2024, was necessitated by the Respondent’s operational requirements and financial constraints. According to him, the decision to declare the grievants redundant was informed by financial challenges that compelled the Respondent to rationalize and streamline its workforce. 3. He further stated that all employees affected by the redundancy, including the grievants, were issued with one month’s notice before the redundancy took effect. He added that a similar notice was served upon the Claimant on 28th November 2024. 4. Mr. Irungu also contended that the CBA, which is the subject of dispute in *Nyeri ELRC Cause No. 003 of 2024,* and which has expired, is no longer practical or sustainable in the prevailing economic circumstances. It was his testimony that the economic environment has significantly deteriorated since the CBA was negotiated and that the Respondent’s financial position has worsened considerably. 5. He further testified that membership of the cooperative society has declined, with many farmers opting to deliver their coffee to competing factories offering more attractive returns. He added that the Respondent continues to grapple with longstanding loans and other outstanding debts. 6. Mr. Irungu further testified that the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 14th grievants, who had initially been affected by the redundancy, were subsequently re-engaged on one-year contracts to fill positions considered necessary to the Respondent’s operations. In his view, this demonstrated that the redundancy was undertaken in good faith and was driven by genuine operational considerations. 7. He further stated that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 16th grievants had each served the Respondent for between 24 and 26 years and were due for retirement in 2024 and 2025. According to him, the nature of their duties required younger, physically fit, and energetic personnel to ensure efficiency and safety in the workplace. 8. Mr. Irungu further testified that the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 9th grievants were issued with retirement letters upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. 9. He maintained that the redundancy dues were computed in accordance with ***Section 40 of the Employment Act.*** He further stated that the grievants had already received payment in respect of one month’s notice at the end of December 2024 and, therefore, no outstanding claim exists in that regard. 10. Mr. Irungu maintained that the redundancy process was conducted in full compliance with the law and that all affected employees received their lawful entitlements in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Act. **Submissions** 1. On its part, the Claimant submitted that the inquiry report did not address redundancy, but instead recommended a lean staffing structure with the necessary competencies and skills. According to the Claimant, this meant that the Respondent was required to equip and empower its staff to acquire the requisite skills for the robust performance of the society. 2. It was further submitted by the Claimant that the redundancy letters dated 2nd December 2024 were issued barely four days after the notice dated 28th November 2024, contrary to the CBA and Section 40 of the Employment Act. 3. The Claimant further contended that it was not involved in the redundancy process, that the “last in, first out” principle was not applied, and that the notice issued was inconsistent with the CBA. In the Claimant’s view, there were numerous gaps in the redundancy process, rendering it unprocedural and unlawful. 4. It was further submitted by the Claimant that the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 9th grievants were issued with redundancy letters, which they duly signed, and that the Respondent proceeded to compute their terminal dues on the basis that they had been declared redundant. It was further contended by the Claimant that none of the said grievants received or signed for retirement letters as alleged by the Respondent, unlike the redundancy letters, which were acknowledged. 5. In the Claimant’s view, it was not possible for employees who had already been terminated on account of redundancy to subsequently receive retirement letters, as the employment relationship had already come to an end. 6. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that it notified the Claimant union and the Muranga County Labour Officer of the intended redundancies through the letter dated 28th November 2024 and subsequently issued the termination notices. 7. With respect to the selection criteria, the Respondent posited that the Employment Act does not require an employer at the notice stage to publish a finalised selection list, nor to follow a mathematical or rigid criterion. According to the Respondent, it is evident from the list of the employees declared redundant that it took into account the factors listed under the Employment Act. 8. Referencing the case of ***Kenya Airways Ltd v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others (2014) KECA 404 (KLR),*** the Respondent submitted that it has demonstrated that it was guided by the criteria under ***Section 40(1) (c) of the Employment Act.*** 9. The Respondent further submitted that the redundancies were as a result of its operational needs and not as a retaliation for the suit filed by the employees. 10. It was the Respondent’s further submission that the redundancy benefits were calculated in accordance with ***Sections 40(1) (e) (f) and (g) of the Employment Act.*** According to the Respondent, it is not possible to pay the redundancy benefits in line with the contested CBAs, as this would further cripple it. 11. While admitting that CBAs are binding instruments, the Respondent contended that the same must be balanced against the practical reality of an employer’s ability to pay, particularly when faced with genuine financial distress. In support of this position, the Respondent placed reliance on the cases of ***Hesbon Ngaruiya Waigi v Equatorial Commercial Bank (2013) eKLR*** and ***Kenya Tea Growers Association & another v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union (2012) eKLR.*** **Analysis and Determination** 1. Having considered the pleadings by both parties, the evidentiary material on record, and rival submissions, the Court finds that the following issues arise for determination: 2. ***Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 16th October 2020 was applicable to the redundancy process affecting the grievants;*** 3. ***Whether the employment of the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 9th grievants was terminated on account of redundancy or retirement;*** 4. ***Whether the redundancy of the grievants was substantively justified;*** 5. ***Whether the Respondent complied with the procedural requirements governing redundancy; and*** 6. ***Whether the grievants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Amended Memorandum of Claim.*** **Applicability of the CBA dated 16th October 2020 to the redundancy process** 1. The Claimant contends that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the CBA in force when terminating the grievants’ employment on account of redundancy. The Respondent disputes this position, arguing that the CBA had expired and could no longer be relied upon, particularly in light of the prevailing economic conditions, which it asserts have significantly deteriorated since the agreement was concluded. 2. It is worth noting that **Section 59(3) of the Labour Relations Act** provides that the terms of a collective agreement are deemed to be incorporated into the contracts of employment of all employees covered by the agreement. 3. Consequently, upon execution and registration of the CBA dated 16th October 2020, its terms became part and parcel of the grievants’ respective contracts of employment. Therefore, the mere expiry of the CBA did not extinguish or negate those terms, which continued to subsist as contractual obligations binding upon the parties. 4. What’s more, **Section 10(5) of the Employment Act** prohibits an employer from unilaterally altering an employee’s terms and conditions of service. Accordingly, even assuming the existence of the adverse economic conditions alleged by the Respondent, it was not open to the Respondent to unilaterally disregard or declare inapplicable the terms that had already been incorporated into the grievants’ contracts of employment. 5. In the premises, the Court finds and holds that the terms and conditions contained in the CBA dated 16th October 2020 remained applicable and governed the redundancy process that culminated in the termination of the grievants’ employment. 6. I must also say that the principle of fair labour practices militates against the unilateral diminution of employees’ terms and conditions of service. Sound industrial relations and fair labour standards require that such terms be preserved and, where possible, progressively improved rather than reduced to the detriment of employees. **Whether the employment of the 2nd,3rd, 8th and 9th grievants was terminated on account of redundancy or retirement** 1. The Respondent contends that the 2nd,3rd,8th,and 9thgrievants were issued with retirement letters upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. In support of this position, the Respondent exhibited letters of retirement dated 2nd December 2024 allegedly issued to the said grievants. 2. The Claimant, however, disputes this assertion and maintains that the grievants were never served with the alleged retirement letters, contending that the same were an afterthought introduced to justify the termination process. 3. On its part, the Claimant exhibited termination letters issued to 2nd,3rd,8th and 9thgrievants on 2nd December 2024 on account of redundancy. 4. During cross-examination, RW1 conceded that the Respondent first issued the four grievants with redundancy letters and thereafter issued letters of retirement. 5. It is further notable that all four grievants signed the redundancy termination letters, unlike the alleged retirement letters, which bear no evidence of acknowledgment by the affected employees. In addition, the Respondent did not demonstrate the manner in which the retirement letters were served upon the grievants, particularly in light of the earlier issuance of redundancy notices. 6. Further, there is no evidence that upon issuance of the retirement letters, the Respondent recalled, withdrew, or formally revoked the earlier redundancy notices issued to the four grievants. 7. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 2nd,3rd,8th and 9thgrievants exited the Respondent’s employment on account of redundancy, and not on retirement upon attainment of the mandatory retirement age. **Substantive justification for the termination on redundancy?** 1. Having found that all the grievants were terminated on account of redundancy, **Section 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Employment Act** places the evidentiary burden upon the Respondent, being the employer, to demonstrate that the reasons for termination were fair, valid, and grounded on its operational requirements. 2. The Respondent has attributed the redundancy to economic constraints, budgetary cuts, and overstaffing, which it claims rendered it financially unsustainable to retain the affected employees. 3. In support of its position, the Respondent produced an extract of an inquiry report by the Commissioner of Co-operatives. The report recommended, *inter alia*, that in view of the significant decline in the Respondent’s operations, the management committee ought to implement a lean staff establishment with the requisite competencies and skills necessary to turn around its performance. 4. Emerging jurisprudence underscores that courts ought to exercise restraint and avoid undue interference with an employer’s managerial prerogative in making and implementing bona fide business and operational decisions. Accordingly, it is not the role of this Court to interrogate the Respondent’s strategic decision to adopt the recommendations of the Commissioner of Co-operatives in the inquiry report aimed at streamlining its workforce. 5. In the circumstances, and in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the grievants’ termination on account of redundancy was unrelated to the Respondent’s operational requirements. 6. In the final analysis, the Court is persuaded that the Respondent has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the redundancy was founded on a fair and valid reason and was linked to its operational requirements. **Procedural fairness?** 1. With regard to the requirement of procedural fairness in redundancy, **Section 40(1) of the Employment Act** prescribes the following conditions that an employer must comply with prior to terminating the services of an employee on account of redundancy; 2. ***where the employee is a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the union to which the employee is a member and the labour officer in charge of the area where the employee is employed of the reasons for, and the extent of, the intended redundancy not less than a month prior to the date of the intended date of termination on account of redundancy;*** 3. ***where an employee is not a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the employee personally in writing and the labour officer;*** 4. ***the employer has, in the selection of employees to be declared redundant had due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability and reliability of each employee of the particular class of employees affected by the redundancy;*** 5. ***where there is in existence a collective agreement between an employer and a trade union setting out terminal benefits payable upon redundancy; the employer has not placed the employee at a disadvantage for being or not being a member of the trade union;*** 6. ***the employer has where leave is due to an employee who is declared redundant, paid off the leave in cash;*** 7. ***the employer has paid an employee declared redundant not less than*** ***one month’s notice or one month’s wages in lieu of notice; and*** 8. ***the employer has paid to an employee declared redundant*** ***severance pay at the rate of not less than fifteen days’ pay for each completed year of service.*** 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that on 28th November 2024, the Respondent issued a general notice indicating its intention to declare 10 of its employees redundant. The said notice, which was copied to the Claimant union, the County Labour Officer, and the County Co-operative Commissioner, set out the proposed redundancy exercise. 10. What is striking about the said notice is that it did not disclose the extent of the intended redundancy as contemplated under **Section 40(1)(a) of the Employment Act.** In particular, while the notice indicated the number of employees likely to be affected and the general reason for the redundancy, it did not specify the categories of employees to be affected or the positions earmarked for redundancy. 11. In the Court’s view, the requirement under Section 40(1)(a) that notice be given of *“the extent of the intended redundancy”* contemplates disclosure of sufficient particulars to enable meaningful engagement. Such particulars include, *inter alia*, the positions to be declared redundant and the categories of employees likely to be affected by an intended redundancy. 12. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the notice issued by the Respondent did not substantially comply with the requirements of **Section 40(1)(a) of the Employment Act.** 13. The next requirement relates to the selection criteria under **Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act,** which obligates an employer, in selecting employees for redundancy, to have due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability, and reliability of each employee within the affected category. 14. In the present case, the Respondent neither set out nor demonstrated to the Court the selection criteria applied in identifying the employees ultimately declared redundant. 15. It must be appreciated that the selection criteria is not a mere procedural formality. It goes to the core of the fairness, transparency, and objectivity of any redundancy process. 16. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements of **Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act** in the selection of the grievants for redundancy. 17. The other procedural requirement is the obligation to undertake consultations prior to effecting a redundancy exercise. 18. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the Respondent engaged the Claimant union in any pre-redundancy consultations. 19. ***Article 13, Convention No. 158 - Recommendation No. 166 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention,*** underscores the requirement for consultation with affected employees or their union representatives prior to termination on account of redundancy. The Court is further guided by the Court of Appeal decision in ***Kenya Airways Ltd v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 Others*** in which Maraga JA (as he then was), expressed himself as follows: - ***“Although it also does not expressly provide for consultation between the employer and the employees or their trade unions before the final decision on redundancy is made, on my part I find the requirement of consultation provided for in our law and implicit in the Employment Act itself.******By dint of Article 2(6) of the Constitution, the treaties and conventions ratified by Kenya are now part of the law of Kenya. The Kenya Constitution, 2010 was promulgated on 27th August, 2010…The notices under this provision are not merely for information. Read together with Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 which provides for reference to the Minister for Labour of trade disputes, including those related to redundancy (see Section 62(4)) for conciliation, I am of the firm view that the requirement of consultations implicit in these provisions.”*** 1. This Court adopts the sentiments of the Learned Judge and is persuaded that consultation is an indispensable component of a fair redundancy process. 2. It must also be appreciated that the purpose of consultations under ***Article 13 of ILO Convention No. 158*** is to afford parties an opportunity to consider measures aimed at avoiding or minimizing terminations, and where termination is unavoidable, to mitigate its adverse effects on the affected employees, including exploring alternatives such as redeployment or other supportive measures. 3. In the present case, the Respondent, having resolved to undertake the redundancy exercise, was under a duty to engage the Claimant union in meaningful consultations with a view to exploring alternatives that could reduce the number of affected employees or otherwise cushion the impact of the redundancy. 4. Indeed, had such consultations been undertaken, the parties may have explored alternatives such as temporary pay adjustments, redeployment within the Cooperative Society, or other cost-saving measures aimed at avoiding or reducing the scale of the redundancies. 5. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirement for pre-redundancy consultations and is therefore at fault in that regard. 6. With respect to the statutory dues stipulated under ***Section 40(1)(e), (f), and (g) of the Employment Act,*** the termination letters dated 2nd December 2024 issued to the grievants indicated that they would be paid severance pay calculated at the rate of 26 days for each completed year of service, together with salary arrears, accrued leave, notice pay, and overtime dues. 7. These benefits broadly reflect the entitlements provided for under ***Section 40(1)(e), (f), and (g) of the Employment Act.*** However, it is noteworthy that certain components, particularly notice pay and severance pay, did not fully align with the more favourable terms stipulated under the CBA in force, which this Court has already found was applicable to the redundancy process. 8. Further, it became apparent during the hearing that the Respondent was yet to fully settle the grievants’ redundancy dues. Indeed, RW1 conceded as much during cross-examination, stating that the Respondent was financially constrained and that payment would be made once an agreeable mode of settlement is reached. 9. A plain reading of ***Section 40(1) of the Employment Act*** reveals that the conditions set out therein are mandatory preconditions that must be satisfied by an employer prior to terminating employment on account of redundancy. 10. Accordingly, the Respondent was required to ensure compliance with, and effect payment of the statutory dues provided under ***Section 40(1)(e), (f), and (g) of the Employment Act*** prior to or contemporaneously with the termination of the grievants’ employment on account of redundancy. 11. All things considered, the Court finds that the Respondent did not substantially comply with the procedural requirements under ***Section 40(1) of the Employment Act.*** Consequently, the termination of the grievants’ employment on account of redundancy was procedurally unfair. **Reliefs?** 1. Having found that the Respondent failed to substantially comply with the procedural requirements in effecting the termination of the grievants on account of redundancy, the Court awards each of the grievants compensation equivalent to three (3) months’ gross salary. In arriving at this award, the Court has taken into account its finding that the Respondent discharged the evidential burden of demonstrating that the redundancy was founded on a fair and valid reason, based on its operational requirements. The award is therefore nominal in nature. 2. The prayer for reinstatement is declined. This is on the basis that the Court has already found that the redundancy was substantively justified, being based on valid and fair operational requirements of the Respondent. 3. The other claims, namely salary arrears, pay in lieu of notice, accrued leave days, overtime pay, and severance pay, having not been contested, are hereby awarded in accordance with the provisions of the applicable CBA. **Orders** 1. In the final analysis, the Court allows the claim and finds that the termination of the grievants on account of redundancy was procedurally unfair and unlawful. Consequently, the Court makes the following awards in respect of each grievant: **1st grievant (Peter Kamiri Kamau)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 104,279.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 104,279.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 136,365.80 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 93,652.70 3. Overtime Kshs 528,809.14 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,660,793.60 5. Transport allowance Kshs 900.00 **Total Kshs 3,629,080.64** **2nd grievant (Paul Munga Mworia)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 94,532.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 94,532.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 41,206.60 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 86,805.40 3. Overtime Kshs 217,386.10 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,600,946.40 **Total Kshs 3,135,409.90** **3rd grievant (Jane Wanjiku Njoroge)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 94,532.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 94,532.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 164,826.20 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 75,979.22 3. Overtime Kshs 93,952.30 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,600,946.40 **Total Kshs 3,124,769.52** **4th grievant (John Ndegwa Njoroge)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 62,100.00 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 62,100.00 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 54,138.50 2. Overtime Kshs 98,400.00 3. Severance pay Kshs 256,000.00 **Total Kshs 408,538.50** **5th grievant (Teresia Wanjiru Maina)** 1. One month’s notice pay Kshs 12,300.00 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 36,900.00 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 16,084.00 2. Overtime Kshs 25,246.00 3. Severance pay Kshs 49,200.00 **Total Kshs 139,730.00** **6th grievant (Ephantus Gathungu Kariuki)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 104,279.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 104,279.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 136,365.80 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 93,652.70 3. Overtime Kshs 473,688.00 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,882,526.40 **Total Kshs 3,794,792.30** **7th grievant (Zafania Mwangi)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 94,532.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 94,532.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 82,413.10 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 86,805.40 3. Overtime Kshs 218,056.30 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,000,728.00 5. Transport allowance Kshs 7,000.00 **Total Kshs 2,584,068.20** **8th grievant (Evan Kiai Macharia)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 85,539.30 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 85,539.30 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 37,286.40 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 81,392.10 3. Overtime Kshs 307,130.40 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,341,133.60 **Total Kshs 2,938,021.10** **9th grievant (Elizabeth Wanjiku Macharia)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 104,279.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 104,279.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 45,455.25 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 93,652.70 3. Overtime Kshs 386,401.40 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,882,526.40 **Total Kshs 3,408,035.75** **10th grievant (Stephen Macharia Muchiri)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 94,532.70 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 94,532.70 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 41,206.60 2. Accrued arrears Kshs 86,805.40 3. Overtime Kshs 187,272.95 4. Severance pay Kshs 2,600,946.40 **Total Kshs 3,105,296.75** **11th grievant (Veronica Wanjiru Maina)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 69,300.00 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 69,300.00 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 60,415.40 2. Overtime Kshs 41,908.60 3. Severance pay Kshs 288,000.00 4. Transport allowance Kshs 3,600.00 **Total Kshs 532,524.00** **12th grievant (Peter Gachiri Njuguna)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 85,539.30 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 85,539.30 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 37,286.40 2. Overtime Kshs 359,207.00 3. Severance pay Kshs 900,436.00 **Total Kshs 1,468,008.00** **13th grievant (Stanley Irungu Gachoka)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 85,539.30 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 85,539.30 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 74,572.70 2. Severance pay Kshs 810,392.40 **Total Kshs 1,056,043.70** **14th grievant (Stanely Kimathi Kuria)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 98,100.00 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 98,100.00 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 128,284.60 2. Overtime Kshs 115,538.40 3. Severance pay Kshs 312,000.00 4. Acting allowance Kshs 115,600.00 **Total Kshs 867,623.00** **15th grievant (John Maina Wanjiru)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 128,239.20 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 128,239.20 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 55,899.10 2. Accrued salary arrears Kshs 125,927.90 3. Overtime Kshs 58,176.40 4. Severance pay Kshs 1,374,888.00 **Total Kshs 1,871,369.80** **16th grievant (Josephine Wangui Gathioro)** 1. 3 months’ notice pay Kshs 184,500.00 2. Compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 3 months of gross salary) Kshs 184,500.00 1. Accrued leave days Kshs 643,384.60 2. Accrued salary arrears Kshs 126,399.60 3. Overtime Kshs 346,401.40 4. Severance pay Kshs 5,200,000.00 **Total Kshs 6,685,185.60** 1. Interest shall accrue on the respective total sums at court rates with effect from 30 days after the date of this judgment until payment in full. 2. In view of the subsisting social partnership between the Claimant union and the Respondent, each party shall bear its own costs. **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NYERI** this**12th** dayof **June** 2026. ……………………………… **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of**: For the Claimant Ms. Macharia For the Respondent Mr. Orina Court Assistant Ndati **ORDER** In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with **Order 21 Rule 1** of **the Civil Procedure Rules**, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of **Section 1B** of the **Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)** which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE**