Kinyanjui v Scania East Africa Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E609 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 1654 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Judgment)

Kinyanjui v Scania East Africa Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E609 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 1654 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1654 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Cause E609 of 2020 HS Wasilwa, J June 17, 2026 Between Agatha Wambui Kinyanjui Claimant and Scania East Africa Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this claim vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 2nd October 2020 and prays for: -a.Twelve (12) months compensation for unfair termination at Kshs.144, 125.00 per month;b.Two (2) Months additional payment in lieu of notice at Kshs. 144,125.00 per month;c.Seven (7) Years compensation at Kshs. 144,125.00 per month for loss of earnings occasioned by the breach of the Claimant's legitimate expectation that being a permanent and pensionable employee, she would work until the retirement age of 60 years;d.General damages for harassment and infringement of the Claimant's constitutional right of fair labour practices and fair administration action guaranteed under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010;e.The interest on the aforesaid sums at the court rates from the date of termination; andf.Costs of the suit and interest at court rates from the day of institution of suit. Claimant’s Case 2.The Claimant avers that she was employed by the Respondent from 1st March 2014 until 29th July 2020. She was initially engaged as a Secretary in the Managing Director’s office and was subsequently promoted to the position of Credit Controller in the Finance Department, reporting to the Finance Director through a Promotion and Re-Designation Letter dated 15th August 2014. 3.The Claimant avers that prior to joining the Respondent, she was employed by Kenya Grange Vehicle Industries Limited (KGVI), the sole distributor of the Respondent’s buses and trucks in Kenya, where she served first as a Management Secretary and later as an Executive Secretary reporting to the Managing Director. 4.She states that in 2014, KGVI’s business was acquired by Scania CV AB of Sweden, leading to the formation of the Respondent company. She contends that following the acquisition, she and other employees of KGVI were declared redundant and thereafter absorbed by the Respondent as employees. 5.The Claimant avers that as a Credit Controller, her duties included ensuring timely payment of customer credit balances, monitoring collections, undertaking account reconciliations, ensuring adherence to credit limits, responding to debt collection queries and keeping the Company informed on emerging credit management practices. 6.She avers that throughout her employment, her performance was exemplary and that she received substantial salary increments every year, including during difficult economic periods, as evidenced by salary increment letters dated 2nd March 2015, 29th March 2017, 20th February 2018 and 28th February 2019; and at the time of separation, she earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 144,125. 7.She further states that she held various leadership positions within the Company, including serving as Chairperson of the Respondent’s Welfare Association, and that in March 2019 she was voted by an overwhelming majority of her colleagues as the “Most Hardworking and Inspiring Woman in the Company”, as reflected in the Respondent’s Facebook post. 8.The Claimant however contends that despite her diligence and work ethic, she was subjected to harassment by senior officers of the Respondent, particularly the Human Resources Director, Mr. Githaiga Kamwenji. 9.She states that the harassment began in April 2018 after she reported the existence of toxic gaseous waste within the work environment which was adversely affecting employees’ health. She avers that after efforts by employees to report the matter internally proved unsuccessful, she became seriously ill from the pollution and was compelled to work from home from 4th June 2018 to 14th August 2018. 10.She approached other employees and they escalated the matter to the Respondent’s global Vice President and Regional Director, as well as relevant state agencies including the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services, NEMA and the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company, resulting in intervention and cessation of the pollution. 11.The Claimant contends that the Human Resources Director perceived her actions as an attempt to expose him to senior management and thereafter embarked on a campaign of retaliation. He deducted forty-three (43) days from her leave entitlement, being the period, she had worked from home while unwell due to the pollution. 12.She reported the matter to her Head of Department, the Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Joakim Andersson, through emails requesting restoration of the leave days. Vide an email date 2nd February 2019, the HOD requested the Human Resources Director to regularise her leave days after confirmation by the IT Department that she had indeed been working remotely. The Claimant also supplied medical records, including a report from Avenue Healthcare dated 21st December 2018, to justify her physical absence from the workplace. 13.The Claimant avers that following that incident, the Human Resources Director embarked on a deliberate campaign of targeting and harassing her. On 7th December 2018, he summoned her to a meeting and complained about her attitude towards the Human Resources Department and afterwards issued her with a “Consensus Agreement Memo” containing matters that had not been discussed or agreed upon. She declined to accept the memo and responded accordingly leading to her being issued with a Cautionary Memo dated 11th December 2018 for convening a staff welfare meeting, an activity she maintains fell squarely within her mandate as Chairperson of the Welfare Association. 14.The Claimant further avers that on 18th November 2019, a Stores Department Supervisor, Mr. Sammy Odhiambo, requested her to accompany him during a disciplinary hearing in which he faced allegations of altering prices in the system and absenteeism. During the hearing, she observed procedural unfairness and attempted to intervene on behalf of her colleague but was not permitted to raise her concerns. Mr. Odhiambo was subsequently suspended pending investigations. 15.She states that on 19th November 2019, , she was invited to a “Labour Relations Meeting” where she was accused of attempting to usurp the functions of the Human Resources Department and coercing employees from the Stores Department to support Mr. Odhiambo. Immediately after the meeting, she was issued with Cautionary Memo No. 2 dated 19th November 2019. 16.She avers that on 9th December 2019 she was subjected to a disciplinary hearing on allegations of disloyalty, interference with other departments, insubordination and exciting disaffection among employees. Immediately after the hearing, she was served with an undated Final Warning Letter by the Administration Manager, Mr. Simon King’ori, which she contends had been prepared beforehand. 17.Immediately thereafter employees and service providers were discouraged from associating with her, her subsidised parking benefit was withdrawn, her medical cover interfered with and her name removed from the office mailing list. 18.She avers that on 23rd July 2020, employees were invited through an email from the Human Resources Director to attend a meeting where the Managing Director informed staff of an intended global downsizing exercise arising from the economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Afterwards, by an invitation dated 27th July 2020, she was requested to attend a meeting on 29th July 2020. 19.The Claimant states that upon reporting to work on 29th July 2020, she was handed a termination letter dated 29th July 2020 informing her that her position of Credit Controller had become redundant due to the economic downturn occasioned by Covid-19. She avers that although the letter indicated that the termination would take effect on 31st July 2020, she was required to hand over her duties and clear immediately. 20.It is the Claimant’s case that she was not issued with a prior notice of intended redundancy, was not consulted before the decision was made and was not involved in any discussions aimed at exploring alternatives to redundancy. She states that she was merely required to complete an addendum to the termination letter forwarding her details to a recruitment agency. 21.The Claimant contends that the redundancy was procedurally unfair for failure to issue the statutory notice, consult her and apply the “first in, last out” principle. Further, the reason for redundancy was not genuine as the Respondent employed two management-level employees in April 2020, as evidenced by the office communication dated 1st April 2020, and only three employees out of a workforce of over one hundred employees were declared redundant. 22.She further avers that the position of Credit Controller was not abolished as she was required to hand over her duties to another employee who continued performing the same functions and whom she continues to assist. Further, the Respondent’s business model, which involves asset sales and debt recovery, thus, it is inconceivable that the position of Credit Controller become unnecessary. 23.She states that although the Respondent assured her that the redundancy was not performance-related, it simultaneously directed her not to serve the notice period and to clear immediately. She contends that the purported notice was therefore merely cosmetic and that the Respondent’s conduct resembled a summary dismissal rather than a genuine redundancy process. 24.The Claimant therefore asserts that she was unfairly targeted for termination under the false claim that the position of Credit Controller had become redundant, that she was victimized for reporting workplace pollution and for standing with Mr. Odhiambo during his disciplinary proceedings, and that the Respondent dishonestly relied on the Covid-19 pandemic as a justification for her removal. 25.She avers that as a result of the Respondent’s actions, she suffered loss of career, loss of her gross monthly income of Kshs. 144,125, loss of future earnings considering that she was 53 years old at the time of termination and expected to work until the retirement age of 60 years, loss of dignity, emotional distress and mental anguish. 26.The Claimant further maintains that the redundancy violated Section 40 of the Employment Act, Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Articles 41, 47 and 28 of the Constitution and Sections 45 and 49 of the Employment Act. She contends that the Respondent failed to accord her adequate notice, failed to consult her, failed to consider seniority, skill, ability and reliability in selecting employees for redundancy, and failed to act in accordance with justice, equity and fair procedure. Respondent’s Case 27.In opposition to the Claim, the Respondent filed a Statement of Response dated 17th November 2020. 28.The Respondent admits that the Claimant was employed by it until 29th July 2020 when her employment was terminated on account of redundancy. It states that the Claimant served as a Credit Controller and that the redundancy arose from the adverse impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its business. 29.The Respondent avers that in June 2020, its global head office undertook a study of its worldwide operations to assess the effects of the pandemic and determine measures for restructuring and cost optimisation. The study concluded that staff reductions were necessary globally and the employees were informed of the impending redundancies through its internal communication platform, “Reflex”, in the weekly report of 31st June 2020. 30.The Respondent contends that the Kenyan operation was required to contribute employees to the regional redundancy exercise affecting over twenty employees. The Claimant was selected because the Finance Department was being repositioned in line with the company’s strategy on electrification, digitalisation and autonomy. It avers that the position of Credit Controller would require new accounting competencies and training which the Claimant lacked. 31.The Respondent states that it notified the Labour Officer of the intended redundancies through a letter dated 30th June 2020 and relies on the letter at page 8 of its bundle. Additionally, employees were informed of the impending redundancies during a staff meeting held on 23rd July 2020 and the Claimant was individually informed on 29th July 2020. 32.The Respondent denies that there were no consultations and states that consultations were held on 23rd July 2020 with affected employees, including the Claimant, though she failed to attend work on that day. During the meeting of 29th July 2020, the Claimant was offered assistance in securing alternative employment but declined. 33.The Respondent admits issuing the Claimant with a notice of termination on account of redundancy on 29th July 2020 and states that she was paid salary up to 31st July 2020, one month’s salary in lieu of notice, 12.5 days’ prorated leave, severance pay for 108 days, medical cover up to February 2021 and pension benefits. It further states that she was issued with a Certificate of Service, final payslip, banker’s cheque forwarding terminal dues, clearance certificate, discharge certificate. 34.It is the Respondent’s case that the Claimant was aware of the impending redundancy and that the procedure under the law was followed. 35.It avers that the redundancy was occasioned by the slowdown in business brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic and that any recruitment undertaken during the same period had been planned from January 2020 and was necessary to fill existing vacancies. The Respondent further states that by December 2020, twenty-three employees had been retrenched in different capacities. 36.The Respondent denies that the position of Credit Controller continued to exist after the Claimant’s departure. It states that the Claimant’s duties were redistributed to existing employees to ensure continuity of operations and that the position no longer exists within the company. 37.On the allegations of harassment, the Respondent denies that the Claimant was victimized and states that salary increments were standard adjustments based on cost-of-living considerations. Further, the Welfare Association was an employee-driven body and that the Claimant did not occupy any strategic leadership position within the company. 38.The Respondent states that the issue of toxic gaseous waste at the workplace concerned a defective sewer pipe on the landlord’s property which was promptly addressed; and denies that other employees raised complaints, that the company’s global leadership-initiated investigations, or that NEMA intervened. 39.The Respondent further avers that inspections by the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services did not establish the alleged occupational hazards and that the Claimant’s medical evaluation was inconclusive as to the cause of her illness and instead indicated stress. It therefore denies any retaliation against the Claimant. 40.The Respondent avers that the Human Resources Department had not received documentary proof regarding her condition or confirmation that she was working from home. On 6th December 2018, the Human Resources Director, the Chief Financial Officer and the Claimant met and agreed that she would provide authenticated medical records and that her leave days would thereafter be regularized. Subsequently, when the documentary proof was submitted and the IT logs confirmed it that the Claimant's leave situation was regularized 41.The Respondent denies that the Cautionary Memo issued in December 2018 was for holding a welfare meeting; and states that the memo concerned habitual lateness, use of intemperate language and interference with other departments. The purpose of the meeting of 7th December 2018 was intended to address this misconduct. 42.The Respondent further avers that following the meeting, the Claimant was issued with a Consensus Agreement Memo where it was agreed that she would change her behavior following the misconduct. It was resolved that the Claimant would undertake various training modules on emotional intelligence, handling conflict, communication and dealing with stress. 43.The Respondent denies that the Claimant was targeted for representing Mr. Sammy Odhiambo in disciplinary proceedings and states that she was cautioned after the meeting for interfering with employees in the Stores Department when it was not in her place to do so and disturbing industrial peace. The purpose of the meeting of 19th November 2019 was to address the Claimant's behavior regarding her interference with employees from the Stores Department. In her conduct, the Claimant had excited disaffection against management and interfered with the running of other departments. 44.It avers that the Claimant walked out of the meeting with the Claimant yelling expletives at the attendees and declined to hear about her personal conduct. She was issued with a cautionary memo dated 19th November 2019 thereafter as a reproach to dissuade from such conduct. 45.The Respondent states that the Claimant was invited to a meeting on 9th December 2019 to address further misconduct; through emails dated 25th November 2019 and 6th December 2019, she used offensive language, undermined the Human Resources Director and management, and interfered with other departments. 46.The Respondent further states that in another email, the Claimant undermined the After-Sales Department by allegations that a service contract was lost because of the incompetence of the After-Sales team. The purpose of the meeting was to implore the Claimant to restrain from this behavior; and following that meeting, she was issued with a final warning to refrain from the said behaviour. 47.The Respondent avers the Claimant’s behavior of using improper channels to interfere with the running of other departments, cast aspersions on the character of others and excite disaffection against management has been habitual and even following the issuance of the final warning in December 2019, the Claimant continued to do so. In another email chain from June 2020, the Claimant is seen to be insinuating without proof that one of the Respondent's employees in the After-Sales department was engaging in unethical financial practices. 48.In another email from her immediate supervisor the Finance Director in March 2020, the Claimant was reminded not to copy senior management in correspondence where it was not necessary. 49.It is the Respondent’s case that it dealt with the Claimant's misconduct in line with internal procedure as outlined in the Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual. 50.The Respondent denies interfering with the Claimant’s parking privileges or medical insurance and states that any parking issue arose from a typographical error which was promptly rectified as soon as the complaint was raised and the Claimant was able to access office parking soon thereafter. 51.The Respondent further avers that although it maintains an internal whistleblowing policy for integrity and corruption concerns, the Claimant misused the process by raising allegations of harassment while bypassing the internal grievance procedure. 52.The Respondent therefore maintains that the redundancy was genuine, lawful and procedurally undertaken; that the Claimant was paid all her terminal dues; and that she was not harassed or victimised. Consequently, it denies liability and contends that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. Evidence in Court 53.The Claimant’s first witness, Enock Miyoro (CW1) adopted his affidavit verifying transcript of an audio recording dated 11th October 2022 as his evidence in chief; and produced the transcript of audio recording dated 1st October 2022 as his exhibit. He testified that 54.Upon cross-examination, he testified that he does not know the device used to record or the date the recording was done. 55.The Claimant herself appeared as the second witness (CW2), she adopted her witness statement dated 30th September 2020 and produced her bundle of documents dated 2nd October 2020 as her exhibits. 56.The Claimant’s third witness, Pamela Akinyi Opondo (CW3), adopted her witness statement dated 8th April 2022 as her evidence in chief. She testified that she was an employee of the Respondent from March 2014 to October 2020. 57.CW3 testified that Reflex was an internal communication channel of the Respondent, however, the employees were not trained on it.It was available to all employees but not all employees were able to access it. 58.The Respondent’s witness, Emma Muhia Wanjiru (RW1) testified that she is the Respondent’s Finance Director and adopted his witness statement dated 17th November 2020 as his evidence in chief and produced the Respondent’s bundle of documents as exhibits. 59.The Respondent’s second witness, Simon Kingori (RW2), adopted his witness statement dated 19th September 2023 as his evidence in chief. Claimant’s submissions 60.The Claimant submitted on five issues: whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was done in accordance with Section 40 of the Employment Act; whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unlawful or unfair; whether the Claimant was harassed or targeted by the Respondent's Human Resources Director in the Course of her employment; and whether there was a violation of the Claimant's rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; and whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies prayed for in the Memorandum of Claim. 61.On the first issue, the Claimant submitted that the alleged redundancy was not genuine. It was submitted that redundancy, under Section 2 of the Employment Act, contemplates loss of employment arising from genuine operational requirements where an employee’s position becomes superfluous, and not termination founded on personal considerations or performance-related issues. 62.The Claimant submitted that the Respondent merely alleged that its operations had been adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and that a global operational study had recommended restructuring, yet no operational study, financial statements, audited accounts, board resolutions, expert reports, consultation records, or any documentary material demonstrating financial distress or operational necessity were produced before Court. 63.It was submitted that the Respondent failed to discharge the evidential burden under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. In support thereof, reliance was placed on Nyabuto v Radar Limited [2022] KEELRC 1445 (KLR) where the Court held that an employer must prove that the redundancy was substantively justified and cannot rely on mere assertions of low business. The Claimant further relied on Lucy Woldu v African Development Solution (ADESCO) [2021] eKLR and Francis Kiplagat Kirui v Jade Petroleum Ltd (Jade Retail Ltd) [2014] eKLR, where the Court held that absence of evidence demonstrating financial or operational difficulties rendered a redundancy substantively unfair. 64.It was further submitted that the Respondent’s own pleadings and evidence demonstrated that the termination was not founded on genuine redundancy but on alleged deficiencies relating to the Claimant’s qualifications and skills. The Claimant argued that the Respondent stated that the Finance Department required employees with accounting qualifications in line with a new business strategy centred on “electrification, digitalisation and autonomy” and that the Claimant allegedly lacked the requisite accounting skills. 65.The Claimant submitted that these reasons were reiterated during the retrenchment meeting held on 29th July 2020, where the Respondent’s Finance Director allegedly informed her that although her work was “impeccable,” she lacked professional accounting qualifications necessary for the “new look” Finance Department. 66.The Claimant submitted that redundancy is a “no-fault termination” and therefore cannot lawfully be grounded on alleged deficiencies in qualifications or competence. Reliance was placed on Hesbon Ngaruiya Waigi v Equitorial Commercial Bank Limited [2013] eKLR, where Mbaru J. held: “The process of redundancy does not affect the performance, qualification or conduct of the employees.” 67.The Claimant argued that she had been promoted to the position of Credit Controller through a letter dated 15th August 2014 effective 1st September 2014 and had served in that role for nearly six years. It was submitted that the Respondent was fully aware of her qualifications and experience at the time of appointment and that the Job Description executed on 15th September 2014 expressly provided that the position could be occupied by a person with either a degree in accounting or relevant experience in credit control. Further reliance was placed on Clause 10 of the Respondent’s Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual on promotions and staff mobility to demonstrate that her appointment had been merit-based. 68.The Claimant submitted that the Respondent’s own Human Resource Director admitted during the retrenchment meeting that her work performance had been “flawless” and “a hundred percent.” It was therefore submitted that the position of Credit Controller had not become superfluous and that the alleged redundancy was merely a disguise for an unfair dismissal based on subjective considerations. 69.The Claimant further submitted that the Respondent’s conduct prior to the redundancy negated the alleged operational crisis. She submitted that on 1st April 2020, only months before the redundancy exercise, the Respondent hired two new employees in senior positions, namely a Parts Advisor and an Applications Engineer. It was argued that if the Respondent was genuinely undertaking cost-cutting measures, it would not simultaneously recruit new staff while terminating existing employees. According to the Claimant, the simultaneous recruitment and retrenchment demonstrated bad faith and selective targeting. 70.It was further submitted that after termination, the Claimant handed over her duties to Brian Makau and Leah Wangare and her colleagues continued consulting her on the same duties allegedly rendered redundant. The Claimant argued that this demonstrated that the position itself continued to exist and that its functions remained necessary to the Respondent’s operations. Reliance was placed on Anyango v Kenfreight East Africa Limited [2024] KEELRC 2519 (KLR), where the Court held that where duties of an allegedly redundant employee continue to be performed by others, the redundancy cannot be said to be genuine. The Claimant also relied on D’ Silva v Lordship Africa Fund Management Limited [2024] KEELRC 2706 (KLR), where the Court observed that continuation of duties after termination indicates a disguised dismissal rather than genuine redundancy. 71.On procedural fairness, the Claimant submitted that the Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory safeguards under Section 40 of the Employment Act. The Claimant reproduced Section 40(1)(a)-(g) of the Employment Act and submitted that the provisions are conjunctive and mandatory, such that failure to comply with even one requirement renders the redundancy unlawful. 72.The Claimant submitted that she was never issued with the mandatory one-month written notice contemplated under Section 40(1)(b). She argued that the first and only communication regarding the intended redundancy occurred on 29th July 2020 when she was informed that her employment would terminate on 31st July 2020, only two days later. It was submitted that she was immediately instructed to clear with the Respondent and exit employment. 73.The Claimant denied attending the alleged meeting of 23rd July 2020 where employees were allegedly informed about the intended redundancy, stating that she was working from home at the time due to Covid-19 restrictions. She submitted that the Respondent produced no minutes, attendance lists, or contemporaneous records proving that such meeting took place or that affected employees were identified and notified. 74.Reliance was placed on Thomas De La Rue (K) Ltd v David Opondo Omutelema [2013] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that employees who are not union members are equally entitled to at least one month’s written notice under Section 40(1)(b). The Claimant further relied on Kamau v Copycat Limited [2025] KEELRC 2330 (KLR) where Nduma Nderi J. held: “The initial one-month notice is a procedural requirement to prepare the employee for the unfortunate eventuality to happen for no fault of his/her own. It is to give the employee psychological comfort and preparedness and this cannot be exchanged with a monetary payment.” 75.The Claimant submitted that although the Respondent allegedly wrote to the County Labour Officer on 30th June 2020 regarding intended redundancies, the letter did not specifically identify her as one of the affected employees and no corresponding notice was issued to her personally. 76.On the issue of selection criteria, the Claimant submitted that the Respondent failed to comply with Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act which obliges an employer to consider seniority, skill, ability and reliability in selecting employees for redundancy. It was further submitted that the Respondent violated ILO Recommendation No. 119 — Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963, under Article 15, which provides supplementary guidance on workforce reductions, advising that selection of employees should be based on clear, objective and pre-established criteria that balance the interests of the employer and the employees. 77.Relying on Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] eKLR, where the Court faulted the employer for failing to produce score sheets, appraisal records and comparative assessments demonstrating objective selection; the Claimant submitted that the Respondent failed to produce any assessment matrix, comparative evaluation, score sheets or records demonstrating how she was selected for redundancy. It was argued that despite her over six years of service and exemplary work performance, no consideration was given to her seniority, experience, ability or reliability. 78.The Claimant further submitted that the Respondent’s HR Policy at Clause 14.3 required consideration of job experience, present work performance, future potential and closeness to retirement age during redundancy selection, yet no evidence was tendered to show compliance with those requirements. The Claimant relied heavily on Kathuri v Scania East Africa Limited [2022] KEELRC 12802 (KLR) where Rika J. allegedly found that the Respondent reorganised its operations by identifying “personalities” management could work with, rather than applying lawful redundancy criteria. The Claimant submitted that her termination formed part of the same unlawful restructuring process and demonstrated a pattern of personality-driven terminations disguised as redundancy. 79.On whether the termination was unlawful and unfair, the Claimant relied on Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and submitted that the Respondent failed to prove valid and fair reasons for termination and failed to follow fair procedure. It was submitted that termination through redundancy must satisfy both substantive and procedural fairness and that the Respondent failed on both fronts. 80.On harassment and targeting by the Human Resource Director, the Claimant submitted that the hostility against her arose after she and her colleagues raised complaints concerning toxic gaseous waste affecting employees at the Respondent’s premises in April 2018. She submitted that after escalating the issue to the Respondent’s regional and global offices and to various government agencies including NEMA, the Ministry of Labour and Nairobi Water & Sewerage Company, she became a target of sustained harassment and retaliatory conduct by the Human Resource Director. 81.The Claimant submitted that between May and July 2018, while undergoing treatment at Avenue Healthcare Hospital due to illness allegedly caused by workplace pollution, she was authorised to work from home by her supervisors. However, upon resuming work, she discovered that the Human Resource Director had unilaterally deducted 43 leave days from her annual leave entitlement despite being fully aware of her medical condition and approved remote working arrangements. It was submitted that the leave days were only reinstated following intervention by her immediate supervisor and formal complaint by the Claimant. The Claimant argued that this conduct amounted to targeted harassment. 82.The Claimant further submitted that on 7th December 2018, the Human Resource Director issued a memo titled “Consensus Agreement” purporting to summarize a meeting allegedly held on 6th December 2018. According to the Claimant, the memo discouraged her from raising formal grievances and purported to assign her behavioural and emotional intelligence training modules through the MyCompass platform. The Claimant submitted that she immediately disputed the memo through an email dated 9th December 2018 and asserted that no consensus had been reached. 83.It was submitted that under Clause 11 of the Respondent’s HR Policy, training needs were to be identified through performance management processes and mandatory training could only be assigned by departmental managers. The Claimant argued that the Human Resource Director lacked authority to assign such training and that the modules assigned were intended to profile and intimidate her rather than support her professional development. 84.The Claimant further submitted that the Human Resource Director issued irregular “Cautionary Memos” dated 11th December 2018 and 19th November 2019 accusing her of lateness, interference with departments, use of intemperate language and influencing staff against management. It was submitted that the allegations were vague, unsupported by evidence, and failed to specify dates, incidents or affected persons. The Claimant argued that Clause 13 of the Respondent’s HR Policy did not recognise “Cautionary Memos” as a lawful disciplinary mechanism and that the memos were solely intended to harass and intimidate her. 85.The Claimant further challenged the undated Final Warning Letter allegedly issued in December 2019, submitting that the Respondent failed to comply with Clause 13.2 of the HR Policy which required constitution of an ad hoc disciplinary committee comprising the Department Head and immediate supervisor before issuance of warning letters. It was submitted that no committee was constituted, no minutes were produced and no prior warning letters existed. The Claimant therefore argued that the final warning was procedurally flawed, irregular and malicious. 86.The Claimant submitted that she repeatedly escalated complaints of harassment through emails dated 10th March 2020, 21st April 2020 and 27th April 2020 addressed to the Respondent’s regional and global offices and through the Scania Whistleblowing System. However, she submitted that no investigation report, findings or remedial action was ever communicated to her. It was argued that the Respondent’s failure to investigate or address the complaints amounted to acquiescence in the harassment and violated Article 41 of the Constitution which guarantees fair labour practices. 87.The Claimant further submitted that she suffered additional retaliatory actions including withdrawal of her parking ticket, downgrading of her medical insurance cover from category one to category two without consultation, deductions from her salary for insurance premiums, exclusion from official communication mailing lists, and refusal by the Human Resource Director to approve her request to utilise Bonga Points allegedly because she had reported him to senior management. 88.It was further submitted that even after termination, the Respondent unlawfully suspended her medical insurance cover despite expressly indicating in the termination letter that the cover would remain active until 28th February 2021. According to the Claimant, the cover was only reinstated after persistent follow-up with the new Managing Director. 89.The Claimant also submitted that as Chairperson of Scania Welfare from 2014 until her resignation on 29th December 2019, she was subjected to persistent interference by the Human Resource Director who allegedly disrupted welfare meetings and undermined her role. 90.The Claimant submitted that the foregoing demonstrated a sustained and systematic pattern of harassment, victimisation and retaliation orchestrated by the Respondent’s management against employees perceived as non-aligned with management. Reliance was again placed on Kathuri v Scania East Africa Limited [2023] KEELRC 180 (KLR) where Rika J. held: “Redundancy is not about personalities a Managing Director feels he can work with, but about genuine economic reasons, skills, experience and abilities. The new Managing Director took the wrong approach, considering favourite personalities, and ended up denying the claimant a role he had discharged for over 4 years, in favour of the Sales Manager Mohammed, who was the claimant’s junior.” 91.On alleged violation of Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, the Claimant submitted that Article 41 guarantees every worker the right to fair labour practices while Article 47 guarantees lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action. In the instant suit, the Respondent failed to accord her substantive and procedural fairness and failed to engage in meaningful consultation prior to termination. She cited Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] eKLR where the Court emphasised that consultation is an indispensable component of procedural fairness in redundancy situations. The Claimant submitted that the Respondent failed to consult her or explore alternatives such as redeployment before terminating her employment. 92.On the reliefs sought, the Claimant submitted that under Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Section 49 of the Employment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory orders, compensation, damages and any other appropriate relief upon finding a termination unlawful or unfair. Reliance was placed on Kenfreight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti [2019] eKLR, where the Supreme Court held that once a court finds termination unlawful or unfair, the appropriate remedies are those provided under Section 49 of the Employment Act. 93.The Claimant submitted that she was entitled to a declaration that her termination was unfair and unlawful on account of the Respondent’s failure to comply with Section 40 of the Employment Act, failure to prove a genuine redundancy situation, failure to apply fair selection criteria, and failure to conduct meaningful consultation prior to termination. 94.On compensation for unfair termination, the Claimant sought the maximum twelve months’ gross salary amounting to KShs.1,729,500 based on her monthly salary of KShs.144,125. She submitted that the award was justified due to the Respondent’s concealment of the redundancy decision until two days before termination, the abrupt and malicious manner of termination, the absence of genuine operational reasons, and the sustained harassment and retaliatory conduct she endured after raising workplace concerns. It was further submitted that the termination occasioned her emotional, professional and financial distress, particularly during the Covid-19 period, and that she had not contributed to the termination in any manner. 95.The Claimant further sought two months’ salary in lieu of notice amounting to KShs.288,250, submitting that Section 40(1)(f) of the Employment Act entitles an employee declared redundant to notice pay separate from compensation for unfair termination. Reliance was placed on Kamau v Copycat Limited [2025] KEELRC 2330 (KLR) where the Court held that payment in lieu of notice cannot cure failure to issue the mandatory redundancy notice. 96.The Claimant also sought seven years’ compensation for loss of future earnings, arguing that she was employed on permanent and pensionable terms and therefore had a legitimate expectation of serving until the retirement age of sixty years. She submitted that the abrupt and unlawful termination deprived her of future income, pension benefits and career progression which she reasonably expected to enjoy. 97.On general damages, the Claimant submitted that the Respondent violated her rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution through sustained harassment, intimidation, irregular disciplinary processes, withdrawal of benefits, failure to address her grievances and unlawful termination. Reliance was placed on Joseph Mutuura Mbeeria & another v Cabinet Secretary for Education, Science & Technology & 2 others [2014] eKLR, where the Court held that general damages may issue where labour rights are violated through unfair treatment and infringement of constitutional rights. The Claimant also cited Professor S. Vettori’s article on unfair dismissal and human dignity, submitting that remedies for unfair labour practices ought to vindicate not only financial loss but also the employee’s dignity and wellbeing. 98.The Claimant submitted that she be granted interest on all sums awarded from the date of termination pursuant to Rule 68(1)(f) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules and for costs of the suit under Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act on the basis that costs follow the event. Respondent’s Submissions 99.The Respondent submitted on three issues: whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment on account of redundancy was lawful; whether the Claimant was targeted and subjected to harassment practices; and whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her claim. 100.On the first issue, the Respondent submitted in early 2020 the Covid-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to global operations and revenues within the Scania Group, prompting the global headquarters to direct management worldwide to undertake structural workforce reviews due to reduced activity levels and surplus employees. Reliance was placed on Wachira v Usafi Services Limited [2025] KEELRC 405 (KLR) where the Court took judicial notice of the operational disruptions occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic. 101.The Respondent submitted that through its internal “Reflex” communication platform, employees were informed of the intended layoffs in the weekly report of 3rd to 9th June 2020, therefore, the Claimant as an employee with access to the platform, was aware a company-wide redundancy process was underway. 102.It was further submitted that employees were selected on the basis of skill and ability in accordance with Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act. Within the Finance Department, the Respondent was aligning itself with the Scania global strategy centred on electrification, digitalisation and automation, which required enhanced technical competencies. The Respondent argued that the Claimant’s role of Credit Controller was assessed against the future operational needs of the department and that the Claimant admitted in cross-examination that she was the only employee in the Finance Department without formal qualifications or training in Finance and Accounting. 103.The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was not singled out for redundancy as alleged and that three employees were declared redundant during the material period, while the staff reduction exercise was implemented in phases involving redundancies, repatriation and early retirement. It was further submitted that the engagement of employees in other departments did not negate the redundancy exercise as those positions were necessary for business growth and revenue generation. 104.The Respondent further submitted that although some of the Claimant’s duties were redistributed among existing employees, the position of Credit Controller no longer existed within the organisation. Reliance was placed on Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that courts should not substitute an employer’s business judgment where the employer genuinely believes a redundancy situation exists. 105.On procedural fairness, the Respondent submitted that it complied with Section 40 of the Employment Act by issuing a notice of intended redundancy dated 30th June 2020 to the County Labour Office. Further, a staff meeting was convened on 23rd July 2020 by the Human Resource Director to address employees on the intended redundancies, though the Claimant did not attend work on that day. 106.The Respondent submitted that on 29th July 2020 the Claimant attended a meeting with the Human Resource Director and Finance Director where she was issued with notice of termination on account of redundancy and requested to clear with the company. 107.It was submitted that the Claimant was thereafter paid all her terminal dues including salary up to 31st July 2020, one month’s salary in lieu of notice, prorated leave pay, severance pay, medical cover up to February 2021, pension refund and was issued with a certificate of service. 108.On the allegations of harassment and targeting, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant merely relied on unrelated workplace incidents which bore no causal relationship to the redundancy process. Regarding the 2018 pollution complaint, the Respondent submitted that the issue arose from a defective sewer pipe belonging to the Nairobi County Government and that the matter was resolved promptly through the landlord. 109.It was denied that the Respondent ignored the issue or that investigations established any harmful workplace conditions. The Respondent submitted that the medical evaluation relied upon by the Claimant did not establish any nexus between her illness and the workplace. 110.On the issue of leave deductions in 2018, the Respondent submitted that the same arose from an administrative error occasioned by lack of communication regarding the Claimant’s work-from-home arrangement and that the leave days were subsequently regularised without prejudice to the Claimant. 111.The Respondent further submitted that the “Consensus Agreement” dated 7th December 2018 and the recommendation that the Claimant undertake training modules on emotional intelligence, conflict management and communication were legitimate managerial interventions intended to improve workplace relations and professional development. It was submitted that the Human Resource Director was entitled, in the exercise of his human resource oversight role, to recommend such training measures. 112.On the cautionary memos and warning letters issued to the Claimant, the Respondent submitted that the same related to lateness, interference with other departments, use of intemperate language and undermining of management, matters allegedly supported by documentary records including emails and attendance records. It was submitted that the disciplinary interventions constituted legitimate managerial action and did not amount to harassment. 113.It is the Respondent’s submissions that the Claimant bypassed the Respondent’s internal grievance handling mechanisms and failed to adduce evidence in support of allegations relating to defamation, interference with medical cover, denial of parking access and refusal to utilise loyalty points. It was therefore submitted that the evidence disclosed ordinary workplace occurrences rather than a pattern of victimisation or targeting. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant’s reliance on Kathuri v Scania East Africa Limited [2023] KEELRC 180 (KLR) was misplaced as each case turns on its own facts. 114.On the reliefs sought, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation for unfair termination as the redundancy process complied with the law. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the terminal dues and redundancy pay already paid to the Claimant constituted adequate compensation and that any further award would amount to double compensation. Reliance was placed on Mary Nyawira Karimi v Pure Circle (K) Limited [2018] KEELRC 187 (KLR) where the Court held that payment of terminal dues and redundancy pay constituted adequate compensation. 115.The Respondent alternatively submitted that should the Court be inclined to award compensation, an award equivalent to two months’ salary would suffice. Reliance was placed on Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union v Desert Rose Resort [2022] eKLR, where the court when faced with a claim for unfair redundancy awarded the Claimant 2 months’ salary as compensation. 116.On notice pay, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s contract provided for twenty-eight days’ notice and that she had already been paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice as part of her terminal dues. It was argued that the claim for two months’ notice pay lacked legal basis. 117.On the claim for seven years’ salary for loss of future earnings, the Respondent submitted that employment relationships are contractual and do not guarantee employment until retirement age. Reliance was placed on Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited v Lydia Chepkosgei Mutai [2019] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held:“It was unreasonable for a claimant to believe that it was his/her entitlement and right to be employed during his/her whole working life...” 118.On the prayer for general damages for harassment and alleged violation of Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, the Respondent submitted that the alleged constitutional violations formed part of the unfair termination claim and were adequately addressed through the remedies provided under Section 49 of the Employment Act. Reliance was placed on G M V v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 162 (KLR) where Rika J. cautioned against multiplication of remedies arising from the same cause of action. 119.It is the Respondent’s submission that costs follow the event and urged the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs, maintaining that it had discharged the burden of proving that the redundancy was lawful, fair and procedural. 120.I have examined all the evidence and submissions of the parties herein. The claimant contends that she was unfairly declared redundant by the respondents and she submits that she was terminated on account of other reasons having been a target of sustained and systematic pattern of harassment, victimization and retaliation orchestrated by the respondent management. 121.From the evidence submitted by the claimant the claimant had been subjected to disciplinary process at work after she reported the issue of pollution to the respondent and its global office (page 72 to 77 of the claimant’s trial bundle). She had also reported to the directorate of OSH; NEMA and Nairobi water risks associated with Occupational Health Act the respondent’s premises. 122.The claimant was indeed subjected to a cautionary memo and final warning letters after the complaints she made concerning the health risks. There is no definite reason to lead this court to believe that the claimant was terminated for other reasons other than redundancy. However, it is apparent that the claimant was invited to a meeting scheduled for 29th July 2020 at 11 am and was handed a termination letter dated the same day informing her of the termination on account of redundancy. She was then instructed to clear from her duties and leave the respondent’s premises the same day. 123.The respondents have submitted that the retrenchment of the claimant was proper and based on the right procedure. It is however true that the claimant was declared redundant and handed a redundancy letter dated 29th July 2020 which informed her that the redundancy was to take effect on 31st July 2020 just 2 days ahead. The law envisages that before a redundancy is effected, an employee should be given at least one month’s notice. 124.Section 40 (a) to (g) of the Employment Act states as follows:(1)An employer shall not terminate a contract of service on account of redundancy unless the employer complies with the following conditions –a.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:(b)where an employee is not a member of a trade union, the employer notifies the employee personally in writing and the labour officer ;(c)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;(d)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;(e)the employer has where leave is due to an employee who is declared redundant , paid off the leave in cash;(f)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(g)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. 125.There is no evidence that the claimant was issued with the one months’ notice. No prior information on redundancy was given to her as it was admitted she did not attend the alleged meeting of 23rd July 2020 where employees were informed of the intended redundancy as she was working from home at the time due to the Covid- 19 restrictions. 126.In Kenya Airways Ltd vs Aviation & Allied Workers Union case the court found that notice period is not a mere formality but it is explicitly designed to facilitate a real and meaningful consultative process between the employer, employee and the labour office and give affected employee and union time to understand the situation, propose alternatives to avoid the termination and allow the employee a softer landing space. Such negotiation cannot be cosmetic or merely used to rubber stamp an employer’s foregone decision. 127.The fact that the claimant was not given the envisaged one-month notice,that makes the process unfair and unjustified. Other than claiming for compensation for unlawful termination, the claimant also sought to be paid damages for infringement of her constitutional rights and in particular Articles 41 and 47 of the constitution. 128.It is indeed true that as the respondent declared the claimant redundant without due process they infringed on her rights under article 41 of the constitution which states as follows:(1)Every person has the right to fair labour practices. 129.In the same vain, the respondent breached the claimant’s right to a fair administrative process as envisaged under article 47 of the Constitution which states as follows:(1)Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. 130.In the circumstances of the case ,I find for the claimant and I award her as follows:1.Considering the unfair redundancy of the claimant and the length of time worked by the claimant since 2014 and manner of termination without notice, I find 10 months’ salary as compensation for unfair termination adequate = 144,125x10= Kshs 1,441,250/-.2.I award the claimant damages equivalent to Kshs 2 million for breach of her constitutional rights bearing in mind that she was never given an opportunity to be heard or notice.TOTAL awarded = Kshs 3,144,125/- less statutory deductions.3.The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HELLEN WASILWAJUDGE