Kanyugo v Guru Nanak Ramgarhia Sikh Hospital (Cause E535 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 154 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a hospital's redundancy was unfair because it skipped the mandatory advance redundancy notice, awarding the employee Kshs. 750,000.
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 Claimant's employment was lawful and fair
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness and fairness of termination on account of redundancy
Termination was unfair because the mandatory redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) & (b) was not issued to the Claimant and the Labour Officer; only a termination notice was issued, and the Labour Office notice came two days before termination.
The court held that the notice of intention to declare redundancy is a mandatory, separate notification distinct from the termination notice, designed to enable consultation on measures to avert or mitigate terminations. The Respondent issued only a termination notice and notified the Labour Office two days before termination, defeating the consultative purpose. Although selection criteria and payment of dues were proper, non-compliance with the notice requirements rendered the termination unfair under Section 45.
Remedies for unfair termination
Three months' salary (Kshs. 750,000) awarded in compensation, taking into account length of service and the Respondent's partial compliance with Section 40(1).
In exercising discretion under Section 49, the court considered the Claimant's short length of service (one year under a two-year contract) and the fact that the Respondent complied with some Section 40(1) conditions, including selection criteria and payment of dues, and therefore awarded three months' rather than the twelve months' sought.
Legal principles established
#- All conditions under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act must be satisfied for a redundancy to pass the lawfulness and fairness test
- The redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) & (b) is separate and distinct from the termination notice under Section 40(1)(f)
Court orders
#- 1.Award of three (3) months' salary (Kshs. 750,000) in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment
- 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.Claimant to have the costs of the case
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#One month's salary in lieu of notice
Claim abandoned during trial
Leave pay for one year
Claim abandoned during trial
Service pay for one year
Claim abandoned during trial
12 months' salary in compensation
Court awarded only 3 months' compensation given short service and partial compliance by the Respondent
Costs
The Claimant will have the costs of the case.
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.
However, for a redundancy to pass the lawfulness and fairness test, all the conditions under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act must be satisfied. The Respondent missed the mark by failing to issue proper redundancy notices to the Claimant and the Labour Officer.
Established jurisprudence is to the efiect that the redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) & (b) is separate and distinct from the termination notice provided under Section 40(1)(f) which may be paid off in cash.
I therefore award the Claimant three (3) months' salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment.
This amount will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
The Claimant will have the costs of the case.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the ELRC case number of the suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kanyugo v Guru Nanak Ramgarhia Sikh Hospital (Cause E535 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 154 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 25th July 2022 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/154/eng@2024-02-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.