Mijengo Investment Limited v Kemunto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 775 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that an employer who skips mandatory redundancy notice steps must pay full compensation, even on appeal.
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 appeal is merited and if the Respondent was terminated fairly and procedurally
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's termination on account of redundancy was fair and procedural
The termination was substantively and procedurally unfair as the Appellant failed to comply with section 40 of the Employment Act
The Appellant did not avail minutes of meetings preparing the Respondent for redundancy, gave the labour office only one day's notice instead of one month, did not name the employees considered for termination, and provided no selection criteria. The court applied section 40 of the Employment Act and followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Freight In Time Limited v Rosebell Wambui Munene, holding the redundancy unlawful for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
Whether the Respondent mutually consented to the termination of her employment
There was no sufficient evidence of mutual agreement to terminate
The court found no evidence supporting the Appellant's claim of a mutual consent to terminate the Respondent's employment, agreeing with the trial court's rejection of that assertion. The Appellant did not demonstrate the existence of a binding consent, and the Respondent contended the issue was a new afterthought not raised in the trial court.
Whether the trial court's award of terminal dues ought to be disturbed
The awards were properly made and are upheld
The court found that the trial magistrate diligently considered the reliefs awarded, including compensation, underpayment, severance pay and notice pay, and declined to interfere with them on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must strictly comply with all conditions in section 40 of the Employment Act before declaring an employee redundant; failure renders the termination unfair
- On a first appeal, the court has a duty to re-examine and evaluate all the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The awards of the trial court are upheld
- 3.Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from subordinate courts in employment matters
Relief refused
#Setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree and substitution with dismissal of the Respondent's claim
The Appellant failed to comply with section 40 of the Employment Act and did not justify the redundancy or prove mutual consent to termination
Costs
The costs of the appeal as well are awarded to the Respondent.
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 appeal is found not to be with merits therefore and is dismissed accordingly.
The awards are also upheld as the court finds the trial magistrate diligently put due consideration in awarding the same. The awards are upheld.
The costs of the appeal as well are awarded to the Respondent.
The court holds the trial magistrate was right to find the Respondent was unfairly terminated on an account of redundancy.
The requirement to issue a separate notice to the Labour Oficer, simultaneously with the termination notice, is mandatory. Failure to issue renders the redundancy unlawful.
Issues in the judgment
#The actual names of the parties (Appellant and Respondent) are not stated in the judgment excerpt; they are referred to only by role
The appeal case number is not stated in the judgment
Ground (a) of the memorandum of appeal as condensed appears internally inconsistent - it faults the magistrate for declaring the termination 'substantively unfair and procedurally sound', while the Appellant's own submissions state the trial court found the termination 'both procedurally and substantively fair'
Quotation of Freight In Time Limited case appears garbled, merging the trial court's holding with the quoted passage
The Appellant's prayer (b) refers to 'dismissing the appeal' where it presumably meant dismissing the Respondent's suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mijengo Investment Limited v Kemunto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 775 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/775/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.