Kyao & 111 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1324 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ordered Devki Steel Mills to pay 111 former workers their unpaid redundancy dues under the 2012 CBA, with the company also bearing the legal costs.
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 claim before court is time barred.
- 2.Whether the claimants' termination was fairly and procedurally done.
- 3.Whether the claimants are entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the claim filed on 18/12/2018 was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Not time barred. Although the lockout was in June 2015, the employees remained at work under interim orders granted on 10/7/2015 in ELRC Cause No. 1197/2015; that suit was dismissed on 20/12/2016, which became the effective date of termination, so the claim filed 18/12/2018 was within three years.
The court traced the sequence: lockout on 29th June 2015, return-to-work orders on 10th July 2015 which were extended, and dismissal of the union's suit on 20th December 2016. The employees ceased work only upon that dismissal. The cause of action therefore accrued on 20/12/2016 and a claim filed 18/12/2018 fell within the statutory three-year period.
Whether the CBA in force at termination was the 2012-2014 CBA
The CBA in force at the time of the members' termination in 2015 was the one registered on 15/8/2012, whose clause 26 governed redundancy dues.
The claimants produced a chain of registered CBAs, the last being registered on 15/8/2012 to remain in force for two years until amended. The court accepted this as the CBA in force in 2015 and held redundancy dues must be computed under its clause 26 rates rather than the 2008 CBA the respondent claimed to have applied.
Whether the claimants were entitled to the redundancy/severance dues claimed
Yes. The respondent produced no evidence that it paid the redundancy dues, severance pay or notices; the claimants are entitled to payment per the 2012 CBA, with quantum to be computed by the parties as an addendum to the final judgment.
The respondent asserted it paid terminal dues of Kshs. 17,253,060 per the 2008 CBA, but the witness conceded there was no forwarding letter or stamp on the bank document, no evidence of consultation or individual notices, and no proof of payment by Jokali. Faced with this evidentiary vacuum, the court found the dues unpaid and enforceable under the registered CBA.
Whether the termination was unfair and whether general damages were payable
The court declined to determine the fairness of the redundancy, holding the claim before it was confined to payment of severance pay per the schedule, so neither the unlawfulness of the process nor compensation for wrongful redundancy arose.
Although the court framed fairness as an issue and the claimants sought 12 months' compensation, it characterised the claim as one for payment of severance pay per the schedule submitted and held the issue of unlawfulness did not arise, effectively refusing the general damages head without adjudicating justification or procedure.
Legal principles established
#- Where interim orders keep employees at work and the underlying suit is dismissed, the date of dismissal of that suit is the effective date of termination and the day the cause of action arose for limitation purposes under section 90 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimants' members their redundancy/severance pay as per the 2012 CBA
- 2.The amounts to be calculated by the parties as per the court's judgment and included in the final judgment as an addendum
- 3.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit
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 the registered CBAs (claim for severance, notice pay and certificates of service)
Relief refused
#General damages (12 months' compensation) and the claim of unlawful/unprocedural redundancy
The court found the claim was confined to payment of severance pay per the schedule, so the issue of unlawfulness of the redundancy process did not arise
Notice pay as a distinct quantified head beyond the CBA schedule
The court folded notice into the CBA-based redundancy dues to be computed by the parties in the addendum
Costs
The Respondent will pay costs of this suit.
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.
This claim was filed on 18/12/2018 which is within the statutory period of 3 years envisaged under section 90 of the Employment Act. The claim that this claim is time barred does not therefore have any force of law.
At the time of the claimant members termination in 2015, the CBA in force was the one registered on 15/8/2012 by Hon Justice Ndolo.
There is no evidence adduced before court by respondents that they paid the redundancy dues or severance pay and notices.
It is therefore my finding that the claimant's members are entitled to payment of their redundancy/ severance pay as per the 2012 CBA which I direct the respondents to pay.
Due to the large number of parties involved, I direct the amounts be calculated by the parties as per this court's judgment to be included in the final judgment of the court as an addendum. The respondents will pay costs of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The Amended Response states the Claimants refused to resume work in 'June 2025', an evident typographical error for June 2015 given the chronology of the claim.
The judgment is internally inconsistent on the date of dismissal of Cause No. 1197/2015: it states judgment was delivered on 20/12/2016, while the Respondent's submissions variously refer to dismissal on 18th December 2016 and 18th December 2015.
The court framed 'whether the claimants termination was fairly and procedurally done' as an issue but then held the question of unlawfulness did not arise, leaving the fairness issue unadjudicated while the claimants had sought 12 months' compensation under section 49(1)(c).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyao & 111 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1324 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Statement of Claim dated 18th December 2018) – Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1985/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.