[2025] KEELRC 1882 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant did not provide evidence of a complete shutdown of its Nakuru Refinery operations, as claimed. Instead, the evidence indicated a scaling down of operations with some staff retained, which triggered the obligation to apply selection criteria and consult affected employees under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1882 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: United Millers Limited; Respondent: Sylvenus Otieno
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal E077 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy Procedure, Unfair Termination, Section 40 Employment Act, Selection Criteria, Consultation Obligation
- 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
Sylvenus Otieno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant complied with the selection criteria under Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act during the redundancy process.
- 2 Whether the redundancy process was conducted fairly and lawfully.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in awarding compensation for unfair termination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant did not provide evidence of a complete shutdown of its Nakuru Refinery operations, as claimed. Instead, the evidence indicated a scaling down of operations with some staff retained, which triggered the obligation to apply selection criteria and consult affected employees under Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act. The appellant failed to engage in meaningful consultation and instead issued abrupt notices and internal memos reflecting unilateral decisions. The trial court correctly found the redundancy process unfair and unlawful, justifying the award of compensation to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is declined on the same grounds as Appeal No. E076 of 2024.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
United Millers Limited v Otieno (Appeal E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1882 (KLR) (27 June 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1882 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Appeal E077 of 2024
J Rika, J
June 27, 2025
Between
United Millers Limited
Appellant
and
Sylvenus Otieno
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 E291 of 2023, between the Parties 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, Sylvenus Otieno [also identified as Sylvanus in some documents], was an Employee of the Appellant, whose contract was terminated by the Appellant on account of redundancy.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 Machine Attendant, and there was no requirement to apply the selection criteria, under Section 40 [1] [c] of the Employment Act.
6. 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: - 7. 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.
8. 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 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