[2018] KEHC 8717 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8717 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant's early retirement scheme, initially voluntary, was later imposed on the plaintiffs without proper consultation or union participation, contrary to the collective bargaining agreement and constitutional protections against discrimination. The process did not meet the requirements...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8717 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lawrence Nduttu & 156 Others; Defendant: Kenya Breweries Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 279 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs in part.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Redundancy Procedure, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Discrimination in Employment, Terminal Benefits, Damages for Wrongful Dismissal
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Unlawful Termination Redundancy Procedure Collective Bargaining Agreements Discrimination in Employment Terminal Benefits Damages for Wrongful Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Nduttu & 156 Others

Plaintiff

Kenya Breweries Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the early retirement scheme was carried out in contravention of the constitution and the existing contracts of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the monies allegedly withheld by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid their salaries up to the date of retirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's early retirement scheme, initially voluntary, was later imposed on the plaintiffs without proper consultation or union participation, contrary to the collective bargaining agreement and constitutional protections against discrimination. The process did not meet the requirements for redundancy under the CBA and labour laws, as there was no evidence of business losses or negotiation of terms with affected employees. The defendant failed to justify the selection criteria for early retirement, leading the court to infer subtle discrimination. The plaintiffs' termination was therefore unlawful. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that the early retirement was unlawful and in breach of the constitution and contract of employment.
  • Defendant to pay each plaintiff damages equivalent to one month's salary as at termination.