Ecobank Kenya Ltd v Ngina (Civil Appeal 4 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1128 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that employers must give employees proper one-month redundancy notices, though it trimmed the employee's notice pay award.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the termination of the respondent's employment on account of redundancy was lawful and procedurally fair
- 2.Whether the remedies awarded by the trial court were justified and ought to be upheld
Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy complied with the procedural requirements of section 40 of the Employment Act
The redundancy was substantively justified but procedurally unfair: no personalized notice was issued to the respondent and the notice to the labour officer was issued after termination
The court re-evaluated the evidence as a first appeal. The email of 6th September 2013 concerned reorganisation and redeployment, did not mention redundancy, and was not addressed to the respondent. The letter to the County Labour Office dated 24th May 2014 was received on 11th June 2014, after the respondent had been terminated, contrary to the requirement of at least one month's prior notice under section 40(1).
The content and period of redundancy notices under section 40(1)(a) and (b)
Both kinds of notices require the reasons for, and extent of, the intended redundancy and not less than one month's notice
Adopting Thomas De La Rue and its own prior decision in Africa Nazarene University, the court held that the phrase requiring reasons, extent and one month's notice is common to unionised and non-unionised employees; there is no rational basis for a shorter notice for non-union members.
Whether the award of five months' salary as compensation should be disturbed
The award stands; the appellant failed to establish any ground for appellate interference with discretion
Remedies under section 49 lie in the trial court's discretion. Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, interference is warranted only on misdirection, irrelevant or ignored considerations, or a plainly wrong result. None was shown despite the appellant's reliance on cases awarding two to three months.
The applicable notice period: one month under the 2008 letter or three months under the 2007 offer and Group HR Policies
The signed letter of 13th December 2008 superseded the 30th May 2007 offer letter, so only one month's salary in lieu of notice was payable
The respondent signed and accepted the 2008 'New Grading And Salary Increment' letter containing a one-month termination clause. By her signature she accepted to be bound by it, and it superseded the earlier document. The trial Judge therefore erred in awarding two months' notice pay on a three-month contractual basis.
The duty of a first appellate court
The Court is obliged to re-evaluate and re-analyse the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Citing Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General, the court restated that an appeal from a trial by the High Court is by way of retrial, with the well-settled caveat that the appellate court neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
Legal principles established
#- Compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act is mandatory and an employer who fails to issue the prescribed notices effects an unfair redundancy
- Both subsections 40(1)(a) and 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act require notice of the reasons for, and extent of, the intended redundancy at least one month prior to termination, whether or not the employee is a union member
- Notification to the labour officer after redundancy has already taken effect contravenes the statutory requirement of at least one month's prior notice
- An appellate court will only interfere with a trial court's discretion under section 49 of the Employment Act where the trial court misdirected itself, considered irrelevant matters, ignored relevant ones, or reached a plainly wrong decision
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed partially only to the extent that the award of two months' salary in lieu of notice is reduced to one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- 3.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate framework; the judgment expressly treats it as a first appeal on facts and law
Relief refused
#Appellant's challenge to the five months' salary compensation award
The appellant failed to demonstrate any misdirection, irrelevant consideration, or plainly wrong decision by the trial court
Appellant's contention that general internal emails on restructuring constituted valid redundancy notice
The emails did not speak to redundancy and were not addressed to the respondent
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is firmly settled by this Court that compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act is mandatory.
We, therefore, find that no personalized notice of redundancy was issued to the respondent as required by section 40(1) (b) of the Employment Act, and that the communication relied upon by the appellant consisted of general internal emails on restructuring.
So that, whether an employee belongs to a trade union or not, the reasons and period of notice should be spelt out.
It is common ground that the notice to the Labour Oficer was issued post facto. The redundancy had already taken efiect. This runs afoul of the statutory requirement that such notice be given at least one month prior to termination.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal partially succeeds only to the extent that the award of two months’ salary in lieu of notice is reduced to one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Each party to bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment quotes two differently cited versions of the same Kenya Airways decision with different citations ([2014] eKLR as submitted by the respondent and [2014] KECA 404 (KLR) as quoted by the court), which are recorded as separate entries
The memorandum of appeal is dated 6th January 2020 but the judgment does not state the appeal number or the ELRC case number of the originating claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ecobank Kenya Ltd v Ngina (Civil Appeal 4 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1128/eng@2026-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.