Githinji v DHL-Supply Chain East Africa (Cause E553 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1816 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Respondent's conduct towards the Claimant caused, or contributed to, the Claimant's debilitating illness
- 2.Whether the Respondent terminated the Claimant's contract fairly and lawfully (redundancy)
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's conduct caused or contributed to the Claimant's illness
No causation established; illness not shown to be work-related
The Claimant relied on Dr Otieno's report, but the doctor's opinion on work-related stress was based on information supplied by the Claimant and he was not called as a witness. The Claimant's evidence of praise, pay increases and the Respondent not creating barriers to sick-off undermined the claim. The hospital visit by Marlene Badul was captured in the Claimant's own conciliatory e-mail and was not hostile.
Whether annual leave and sick-off were unreasonably denied
Not established; the accrued 33.8 days against a 25-day entitlement did not show prolonged denial
The Claimant had a negative balance in 2015 and 16 days' balance in 2016, and 33.8 pending days on termination. She never made a formal written application for leave for medical travel to India, and as Human Resources Director she ought to have placed premium on the written record. Some leave and sick-off days had been approved.
Whether the redundancy was fair and lawful
Yes; the redundancy was genuine and the procedure fair, the Claimant herself having led the process
The Claimant issued the notice of intended redundancy to the Labour Office on 5th June 2017 in her capacity as HR Director. It was absurd for her to claim she received no notice when she issued it. She was paid 3 months' salary in lieu of notice under her contract, 1 month under redundancy law, severance at 30 days per completed year, and 33.8 pending leave days, totalling Kshs. 4,411,138 after tax, which she acknowledged as full and final.
Time-bar under Section 90 of the Employment Act
The point was pleaded but not pursued; nothing turns on it
The Respondent pleaded limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act but did not pursue the line of thinking at the hearing, so the Court did not determine it.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who acknowledges payment of terminal dues as full and final enters into a valid and binding contract, as held in Coastal Bottlers v. Kimathi Mithika
- A claimant asserting work-related illness bears the burden of adducing cogent medical evidence of causation
- A discrimination claim requires evidence of a comparator's circumstances, not merely naming a comparator
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (statement of claim filed in the first instance)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondent violated the Claimant's constitutional rights by denying annual leave and sick-off days
The balance of 33.8 leave days on termination did not support the view that leave was denied unreasonably, and no formal leave application for medical travel was made
Declaration of workplace discrimination
The comparator Joaness Okumu was not evidenced; no proof of racial or gender discrimination
Finding that the Respondent caused or contributed to the Claimant's illness
No cogent medical evidence of causation; the doctor's opinion was based on information supplied by the Claimant and the doctor was not called
Payment of medical bills (past and future) and aggravated/punitive damages of Kshs. 60,000,000 and other monetary reliefs
No work injury or illness established; Claimant was paid terminal dues and acknowledged payment as full and final
Costs
No order on the 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.
The Court is not persuaded that the Respondent's treatment of the Claimant, caused or contributed to her illness; she did not apply for annual or sick leave to seek specialized treatment abroad, which was withheld by the Respondent; and she has not established a prima facie case for workplace discrimination
It is absurd for the Claimant, to tell the Court that she was not issued a notice of the intended redundancy, yet she is the one who issued the notice dated 5th June 2017.
The Claimant led the redundancy process, and it is illogical to turn around and say that the exercise, was unfair and unlawful.
a. The Claim is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githinji v DHL-Supply Chain East Africa (Cause E553 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1816 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1816/eng@2024-07-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.