[2023] KEELRC 2735 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 2735 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent terminated the claimant's employment on grounds of downsizing, which amounted to redundancy as defined under section 2 of the Employment Act. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under section 40, including giving proper notice to both the claimant and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2735 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Violet Shikuku; Respondent: Borderless Tracking Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 537 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant.
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Redundancy Procedure, Terminal Dues, Certificate of Service
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Redundancy Procedure Terminal Dues Certificate of Service

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Violet Shikuku

Applicant

Borderless Tracking Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the statutory procedure for redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and terminal dues as prayed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent terminated the claimant's employment on grounds of downsizing, which amounted to redundancy as defined under section 2 of the Employment Act. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under section 40, including giving proper notice to both the claimant and the area labour officer. The termination was effected with immediate effect, and the claimant was not consulted or prepared for the redundancy. The respondent also failed to provide evidence that the downsizing was genuinely due to economic hardship, thus failing to establish a fair and valid reason for termination as required by sections 43 and 45 of the Act. The court concluded...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the termination was unfair and unlawful.
  • Declaration that the withholding of final dues was unlawful, illegal and void ab initio.