Mukabi v Public Service Commission & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E295 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2165 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that abolishing an office doesn't excuse employers from following redundancy notice and hearing rules, awarding a former State House director 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 Claimant's office was lawfully abolished
- 2.Whether the Claimant was unlawfully terminated from office
- 3.Whether the constitutional rights of the Claimant were violated by the Respondents
- 4.What reliefs should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Cabinet Secretary was the authorised officer entitled to request abolition of the Claimant's office
Yes - following Executive Order No. 6 of 2019 placing the President's Delivery Unit under the Ministry of Interior, the Cabinet Secretary became the authorised officer
The appointment letter was signed by the Comptroller of State House, but Executive Order No. 6 of 2019 reorganised functions and placed the President's Delivery Unit under the Ministry of Interior. The 1st Respondent averred the Cabinet Secretary became the authorised officer and the court found no evidence to the contrary. The request of 16th March 2020 was therefore procedurally lawful.
Whether the termination on account of redundancy was procedurally fair
No - the respondents failed to follow section 40 of the Employment Act, terminating without notice or hearing
Although there was a reason for termination on account of redundancy, the respondents were duty bound to follow section 40 of the Employment Act 2007, which prescribes notification of the employee and labour officer, objective selection criteria, notice pay and severance. The respondents terminated the claimant's employment without any notice and without any hearing, and no procedural fairness was applied, citing Kenya Airways v Aviation & Allied Workers Union.
Whether the Claimant proved violation of his constitutional rights
The court did not make express constitutional findings; it granted compensation on the unfair redundancy finding instead
The court noted the claimant's averment that he was attached to the Presidential Strategic Communication Unit rather than the President's Delivery Unit, and that both units were under the Ministry of Interior. Though respondents argued under Mumo Matemu that constitutional violations must be specifically demonstrated, the court resolved the matter on the redundancy procedure rather than on the constitutional declarations sought.
Legal principles established
#- Where an office is abolished and an employee declared redundant, the employer must follow the redundancy procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act, including notice and hearing; failure renders the termination unfair
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation of 6 months' salary being Kshs 1,894,200/- for unfair termination on account of redundancy
- 2.Costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims
Relief refused
#Declarations that the abolition of office and termination were unconstitutional violations of Articles 27, 41, 47 and 232
Court did not grant the constitutional declarations, awarding only compensation for unfair redundancy
Certiorari to quash the request for abolition and the termination letter
Not granted despite finding on unfair procedure
General damages for violation of constitutional and legal rights
Not awarded; only 6 months' compensation
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
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.
It is therefore my finding that the claimant was unfairly declared redundant on account of abolition of his ofice.
The respondent’s however decided to proceed and terminate the claimants employment without any notice and without any hearing following the process envisaged.
Having found for the claimant as such, I find he is entitled to compensation on this account and is entitled to the tune of 6 months’ salary given the length of time the contract was to run = 6x315,700=kshs 1,894,200/-.
The claimant is also awarded costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case/cause number or the parties' names in full
Text contains OCR-type rendering errors, e.g. 'ofiice' and 'efiicient'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukabi v Public Service Commission & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E295 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2165/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.