[2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of a complete shutdown of its Nakuru refinery operations. The process of redundancy began with scaling down in August 2021, but there was no proof that operations had ceased entirely by the time redundancy notices were issued in October 2021. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: United Millers Limited; Respondent: Jeremiah Magetto
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal E079 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Selection Criteria, Consultation Requirements
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
United Millers Limited
Appellant
Jeremiah Magetto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant complied with Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act regarding selection criteria in redundancy.
- 2 Whether the redundancy process was conducted lawfully and fairly.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in awarding compensation for unfair termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of a complete shutdown of its Nakuru refinery operations. The process of redundancy began with scaling down in August 2021, but there was no proof that operations had ceased entirely by the time redundancy notices were issued in October 2021. The appellant failed to consult employees as required, instead issuing abrupt notices and internal memos. The trial court correctly applied Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act, finding that the selection criteria were not satisfied and that the redundancy process was procedurally unfair. The appeal was therefore declined, and the trial court's award of compensation for unfair...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is declined on the same grounds as in Appeal No. E076 of 2024.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
United Millers Limited v Magetto (Appeal E079 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR) (27 June 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Appeal E079 of 2024
J Rika, J
June 27, 2025
Between
United Millers Limited
Appellant
and
Jeremiah Magetto
Respondent
(An Appeal from the Judgment of the Hon. Chief Magistrate Priscah Wamucii Nyota, dated 6th November 2024, in Nakuru C.M.E & L.R.C Cause Number E292 of 2023, between the Partis herein)
Judgment
1. The Appeal herein bears the same factual and legal background to Nakuru E&LRC Appeal Number E076 of 2024, between United Millers Limited v. Daniel Shiraku Okusimba.
2. Like Okusimba, the Respondent herein, Jeremiah Magetto was an Employee of the Appellant, whose contract was terminated by the Appellant on account of redundancy.
3. Unlike Okusimba who was a Machine Attendant, the Respondent herein worked as a Driver. The 2 however worked at the same refinery in Nakuru, and the other facts relating to redundancy, are similar.
4. He filed the Claim at the Trial Court for unfair and unlawful redundancy, and was granted equivalent of 6 months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination.
5. The Trial Court found that, while other requirements under Section 40[1] of the Employment Act were satisfied by the Appellant, the requirement under Section 40[1][c] on selection criteria, was not satisfied.
6. The Appellant filed Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th November 2024 challenging this conclusion. Its position is that the Appellant closed down its operations at Nakuru Refinery where the Respondent worked as a Driver and there was no requirement to apply the selection criteria, under Section 40 [1] [c] of the Employment Act.
7. Parties agreed that the Appeal is considered and determined on the strength of the Record of Appeal and Submissions filed by the Parties.
The Court Finds: - 8. The decision of this Court in Nakuru E&LRC Appeal Number E076 of 2024 [paragraph 1 of this Judgment], is adopted as the decision of this Court, in the Appeal herein.
9. The Court held that the Trial Court did not err in its evaluation of evidence and application of Section 40 [1] [c] of the Employment Act; there was no evidence presented by the Appellant establishing that its plant was shut down; the scaling down of operations, commenced in August 2021, suggested that, there remained a skeleton manpower; operations were not shown to have closed down altogether when the Appellant notified the Employees about redundancy in October 2021; and on the whole, the process was carried out without regard to the principle of redundancy consultation. At every turn, from August 2021 to October 2021, the Appellant was under obligation to consult its Employees. It did not do so, but only communicated its own unilateral decisions, captured in abrupt notices and internal memos.It Is Ordered: -a.The Appeal is declined on the same grounds given by the Court in Appeal No. E076 of 2024 cited above.b.Costs to the Respondent.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. JAMES RIKAJUDGE