Muiruri v Geomaps Africa Limited (Appeal E115 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2691 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a redundancy done on three days' notice, without consultation or severance, was unfair and awarded the employee Kshs 361,691.
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 trial court erred by finding that the Appellant's termination was fair and procedural as per the employment contract and not on account of redundancy
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in not awarding the Appellant the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant's termination was on account of redundancy or per the employment contract
The termination was on account of redundancy; the trial court erred in relying on a non-existent 2016 contract and in accepting the fixed-term lapse argument.
The termination letter dated 30th August 2019 cited lack of work, which points to redundancy, and the Respondent's pleadings admitted redundancy. The only contract produced was a 2011 three-year contract that lapsed in 2014; the Appellant continued working thereafter, so he was presumed permanent or constructively renewed. The Respondent could not introduce misconduct after declaring the employee redundant and offering future re-engagement.
Whether the redundancy procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act was followed
The procedure was not followed; the Appellant was terminated on three days' notice instead of one month, without consultation, selection criteria, severance pay or leave dues.
Section 40(1)(b) requires personal written notice at least one month before redundancy takes effect. The Appellant received the termination letter three days after the internal memo; the notice of lay-off dated 9th July 2019 was disputed and only received by the Labour office. Payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice is independent of the one-month notice period. No consultation or selection criteria were proved.
Whether the Appellant was entitled to the reliefs claimed
Entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice, six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination and severance pay at 15 days per completed year; leave pay and housing allowance claims were time barred.
Guided by section 49(4) of the Employment Act, the court considered 8 years of service and the unfair nature of the termination in awarding six months' salary as compensation. Severance pay was awarded at 15 days' salary per completed year of service for 8 years. Leave pay and housing allowance, being continuing injuries, fell foul of section 90's one-year limitation period.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal the court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while giving due allowance to the trial court's advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
- Termination on account of redundancy requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness in strict compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act, including one month's personal written notice.
- Where an employee is not terminated upon expiry of a fixed term contract and continues working, the employee is presumed permanent or the contract is constructively renewed.
- Consultation in a redundancy must be real and not cosmetic.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice of redundancy of Kshs 32,881/=
- 3.6 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination of Kshs 197,286/=
- 4.Severance pay of Kshs 131,524/=
- 5.Total award of Kshs 361,691/=
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Employment and Labour Relations)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in an employment dispute
Relief refused
#Leave pay of Kshs 184,133.6/-
Time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, claim filed more than one year after termination
Housing allowance
Time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act as a continuing injury
Costs
The appeal was allowed with costs (costs of the appeal awarded to the Appellant).
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.
In the upshot the court finds and holds that the Appellant’s Appeal merited and the same is hereby allowed with costs
One month’s salary in lieu of notice of redundancy…………..32,881
The court therefore notes that the Appellant was terminated on three days’ notice instead of onemonth notice.
Unless the circumstances are such that it would be an utterly futile exercise to hold any meaningful negotiations, consultation has to be real and not cosmetic.
The Appellant did not produce any employment contract and the only contract produced by the Respondent was the one dated 5th September, 2011 for three years.
These heads of claim will therefore be disallowed for being time barred.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the appeal case number or the trial court's case number; the appeal is identified only by its Memorandum of Appeal dated 8th July 2022.
The coram describes the judicial officer as 'PRESIDING JUDGE-APPEALS DIVISION' without a 'J' or judge designation, and the court is not expressly named in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muiruri v Geomaps Africa Limited (Appeal E115 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 8th July 2022 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2691/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.