Olando v Meridian Medical Centre Limited (Cause 710 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2787 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's 'redundancy' dismissal unlawful because the employer skipped the mandatory notice and consultation steps, awarding her compensation and 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 Claimant was unfairly terminated
- 2.Whether she is entitled to the orders sought
- 3.Who bears costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination on account of redundancy was lawful and fair
The termination was unlawful and unfair because the mandatory requirements of Section 40(1) of the Employment Act were not satisfied.
The Respondent pleaded redundancy after restructuring, but led no evidence that the Claimant was issued a redundancy notice, that the Labour Officer was notified, or that the Claimant was consulted. The Respondent also failed to explain the selection criteria as required by Section 40(1)(c). Absence of notice and of an objective selection criterion rendered the termination substantively and procedurally unfair.
Compensation for unfair termination
An award of five months' salary (Kshs.250,000/-) was sufficient compensation under Section 49.
The Claimant was on a one-year fixed-term contract which had only four months remaining at termination. A fixed-term contract carries no legitimate expectation of renewal, so the compensable period is limited. The court exercised its discretion under Section 49 to award five months' salary as sufficient compensation for the unfair termination.
Claim for loss of income for the unexpired term
Declined because the duty to mitigate and the compensation already awarded made such an award unjust enrichment.
Serving to the end of a fixed-term contract is never guaranteed. Having awarded compensation for unfair termination, granting the unexpired-term prayer would unjustly enrich the claimant. Relying on Elizabeth Kibe Wakanyi v Telkom Kenya Limited and Menginya Salim Murgani, the court held the employee must mitigate and cannot sit back awaiting anticipatory remuneration.
Claim for annual leave
Allowed as prayed; eight months of service earned the Claimant leave entitlement.
The Respondent's contention that a full year of service was required to earn leave days was unfounded. The Claimant had served eight months at termination, entitling her to leave days, and the Respondent ended the term early so could not blame her for not serving the full year.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy termination is valid only where the employer proves the actual redundancy and compliance with the procedure in Section 40(1) of the Employment Act.
- The employer must show an objective selection criterion when declaring positions redundant.
- An aggrieved employee has a duty to mitigate losses and cannot claim anticipatory remuneration for an unexpired contract term.
Court orders
#- 1.Five months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination at Kshs.250,000/-
- 2.Leave allowance at Kshs.35,000
- 3.Costs of the suit and interest from the date of judgment until payment in full
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, 2007 (Sections 40, 43, 49 applied)
Relief refused
#House allowance
The Claimant admitted on cross-examination that her salary was consolidated, inclusive of house allowance.
Loss of income for the unexpired term of the contract (July–November 2016)
Serving to the end of contract is never guaranteed; awarding it alongside compensation would amount to unjust enrichment, and the Claimant was under a duty to mitigate her losses.
Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs.64,420/- (value of company goods)
The judgment does not expressly dispose of the counterclaim; no order appears granting or dismissing it.
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Claimant, with interest from the date of judgment until payment in full
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 whole, the Claimant's claim succeeds in terms of the following orders: a. Five months' salary as compensation for the unfair termination at Kshs.250,000/- b. Leave allowance at Kshs.35,000 c. Costs of the suit and interest from the date of judgment until payment in full.
it is clear that the termination of the Claimant on the ground of redundancy, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 40(1) of the Employment, 2007, and which renders the termination unlawful and unfair.
The selection criteria must be objective and where questioned; the employer should be able to show that there was a criterion in place.
An aggrieved employee must move on and not sit back waiting to enjoy anticipatory remuneration.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not expressly dispose of the Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs.64,420/-; the final orders make no mention of it.
Inconsistent statement of the period of service: cross-examination records nine months, while the analysis records eight months.
Typographical error in date of entry of appearance ('29th May, 20218').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olando v Meridian Medical Centre Limited (Cause 710 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2787 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment Cause No. 710 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2787/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.