Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Union v Yemken Trading Company Limited (Cause E810 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court ruled that skipping the one-month redundancy notice and hiding selection criteria makes a Kenyan redundancy unlawful, costing the employer six months' salary.
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 Grievant's employment was lawful and fair
- 2.Whether the Grievant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Grievant's employment on account of redundancy was lawful and fair
Termination was unlawful and unfair for failure to issue the one-month redundancy notice and for lack of objective selection criteria
Section 40 of the Employment Act sets stringent conditions for redundancy, including one-month notice of reasons and extent to the union and labour officer, and objective selection criteria. The Respondent by its own admission issued no redundancy notice, fearing sabotage, which the court held afforded no justification to violate the law. The Grievant learned of the redundancy only on receiving the termination letter. The Respondent also failed to prove any selection criteria, leaving the union's targeting allegation unrebutted.
Whether the Grievant is entitled to the remedies sought
Six months' salary in compensation awarded; other terminal benefit claims disallowed as already paid
Taking into account the Grievant's length of service and the Respondent's failure to comply with the law on redundancy, the court awarded six months' salary in compensation rather than the twelve months sought. Evidence showed terminal dues (severance, notice pay, leave, November salary) had been paid, so those claims failed. Reinstatement was not granted; compensation was the appropriate remedy.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy notices under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) are separate and distinct from the termination notice under Section 40(1)(f)
- An employer alleging targeting in redundancy selection must lay before the Court clear selection criteria
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Grievant in the sum of Kshs. 150,000 being six (6) months' salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment
- 2.The amount to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.Disbursement costs awarded to the Claimant assessed at Kshs. 20,000
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 and Labour Relations Act (specific provision not cited in judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the redundancy notice dated 24th October 2022 was null and void
Not granted as part of the final orders
Reinstatement of the Grievant
Court instead awarded monetary compensation
Claims for severance pay, pay in lieu of notice, pending leave, November 2022 salary and certificate of service
Terminal dues had already been paid
Costs
Disbursement costs assessed at Kshs. 20,000 awarded to the Claimant; no general costs order stated
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.
For the foregoing reasons, I find and hold that the termination of the Grievant's employment was unlawful and unfair.
Whatever fears the Respondent may have had, there was no justification for it to violate the law on issuance of redundancy notice.
In the end, I enter judgment in favour of the Grievant in the sum of Kshs. 150,000 being six (6) months' salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment.
I award the Claimant disbursement costs assessed at Kshs. 20,000.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title and number not stated in the extracted judgment text; the claimant union's name appears only as 'the Claimant'
Respondent's Human Resource Officer's title misspelled 'Oficer' in judgment, and transcription of the termination letter contains OCR-style errors ('infiuencing', 'efiect')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Union v Yemken Trading Company Limited (Cause E810 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1100/eng@2024-05-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.