[2021] KEELRC 1555 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1555 (KLR)

The court found that while the respondent had a valid reason for redundancy due to economic and technological changes, it failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure under section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Specifically, the respondent did not serve the claimant with the required redundancy notice or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1555 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nancy Mbithe Mutisya; Respondent: Coretec Systems & Solutions
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Case Number
Petition 93 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; redundancy declared unlawful and unfair; compensation and terminal dues awarded; reinstatement declined.
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Compensation for Unlawful Dismissal, Legitimate Expectation in Employment, Consultation Requirements, Statutory Compliance
Source Language
english
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Unfair Termination Compensation for Unlawful Dismissal Legitimate Expectation in Employment Consultation Requirements Statutory Compliance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Mbithe Mutisya

Applicant

Coretec Systems & Solutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redundancy of the claimant was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the proper procedure was followed before the redundancy.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondent had a valid reason for redundancy due to economic and technological changes, it failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure under section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Specifically, the respondent did not serve the claimant with the required redundancy notice or engage in consultations to avert or mitigate the effects of redundancy. The claimant was only served with a termination notice, not the initial redundancy notice, and no consultation occurred. This procedural lapse rendered the redundancy unfair and unlawful under section 45 of the Act. The court declined to grant reinstatement, as the position was abolished and no exceptional...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; redundancy declared unlawful and unfair; compensation and terminal dues awarded; reinstatement declined.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay three months gross salary in lieu of notice within 30 days.
  • Respondent to pay 12 months gross salary as compensation for unlawful and unfair termination within 30 days.