Onyango v Mijengo Investments Limited (Appeal E045 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3730 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a sawmill's immediate 'redundancy' dismissal unlawful, awarding the worker seven months' salary because the employer skipped proper notice and consultation.
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 in disregarding the Appellant's evidence on the claim for unfair termination
- 2.Whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 49 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the termination on account of redundancy complied with Section 40 of the Employment Act
- 4.Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that the Appellant was paid his terminal benefits in full
Key legal issues
#Procedural compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act in redundancy
Termination violated Section 40: there was no proper notification of redundancy, no notice period, no real consultations and no involvement of the Labour Office, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful
The letter of termination dated 7th July 2022 took immediate effect the same day it referenced consultations held that day. There was no notification of redundancy, no notice of termination effective immediately, no consultation, and no involvement of the Labour Office. Applying the German School Society decision, notice and genuine consultation are mandatory under Section 40. Immediate termination rendered the procedure a blatant violation and the termination unfair.
Whether the signed termination letter discharged the employer from further claims
The Appellant signed the letter only in acknowledgment of receipt; it was not a discharge agreement
The Court found that execution of the termination letter did not amount to a discharge agreement absolving the Respondent from further claims, since the Appellant signed it in acknowledgment of receipt only. Consequently, the payment recorded in the letter did not bar the unfair termination claim.
Entitlement to compensation and terminal benefits
Compensation of 7 months' salary was merited for the unfair termination; claims for additional terminal benefits failed as they were unsubstantiated and already paid
The Appellant worked 6 years and 5 months earning Kshs. 14,200 monthly, on a no-fault redundancy. He was paid Kshs. 105,444 in terminal benefits including severance of Kshs. 14,200 against a claim of Kshs. 11,433, notice and leave. Claims of underpayment, overtime and public holidays were not articulated. Compensation of 7 months' salary (Kshs. 99,400) was granted.
Legal principles established
#- The purpose of redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, as reflected in ILO Convention 158, is to give the parties an opportunity to consider measures to avert or minimize termination and its effects
- Consultations preceding redundancy must be real, not a charade, and notice to the Employee, Trade Union and the Labour Office paves way for consultations
- A letter of termination signed by an employee in acknowledgment of receipt only does not constitute a discharge agreement absolving the employer from further claims
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is allowed on the ground that termination was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent shall pay the Appellant the equivalent of 7 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, at Kshs. 99,400
- 3.No costs on the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial Court (ELRC subordinate court, not named in judgment)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an employment claim decided by the Trial Court; appeal via Memorandum of Appeal dated 4th June 2024, disposed of by consensual order of 8th July 2025 on the strength of the record and submissions
Relief refused
#Additional terminal benefits (underpayment, overtime, public holidays, further severance)
The Appellant did not articulate these claims, and he had already been paid severance, notice and pending leave exceeding what was claimed
Costs of the Appeal
The Court made no order on costs
Costs
No costs on the Appeal
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.
Termination was in blatant violation of fair and lawful procedure, under Section 40 of the Employment Act. Termination was unfair.
consultations have to be real, not a charade, and opportunity must be given for the stakeholders to consider the process
The Appeal is allowed on the Ground that termination was unfair and unlawful.
The Respondent shall pay to the Appellant equivalent of 7 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, at Kshs. 99,400.
No costs on the Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Letter of termination describes the payment of Kshs. 14,200 severance-equivalent as 'gratuity', and the judgment refers to it both as severance paid and as gratuity, creating ambiguity in characterisation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Mijengo Investments Limited (Appeal E045 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3730 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3730/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.