Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 289 of 2010· [2012] KEELRC 88 (KLR)

KENYA GAME HUNTING AND SAFARIS WORKERS UNION V GALAXY CROCODILE FARM LTD [2012] KEELRC 88 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
2 November 2012
BOByram Ongaya
950 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that an employer who skips the Employment Act's redundancy procedure must pay compensation, even when job cuts are genuinely necessary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union filed a memorandum of claim on 22.03.2010 on behalf of eight grievants, all employees of the respondent crocodile farm, alleging that their declared redundancy was wrongful and intended to defeat the conclusion of a recognition agreement. Conciliation appointed by the Minister of Labour failed. The respondent defended the terminations, relying on contractual seven-day notice provisions and termination letters dated 11.06.2009 citing unexpected mortalities, failure of croc egg collection, and headquarters directives from Korea to reduce management costs. The respondent computed terminal dues for each grievant, including severance at 15 days' salary per year worked, untaken leave, and salary for July and August 2009, a computation not disputed by the claimant. The court framed two issues: whether the grievants should be reinstated and whether the redundancy was unfair. Reinstatement was refused because the respondent appeared to lack capacity to provide work, the grievants were on renewable short periodic contracts of one to six months, and reinstatement would require payment of accumulated remuneration, which the court found unfair. On fairness, the court held the respondent did not follow the due process required by the Employment Act, 2007 and awarded each grievant one month's gross salary as compensation, excepting Elly Otuoma whose fixed term contract had lapsed and John Ngatia who had already accepted his dues. Judgment was entered for the claimant for Ksh. 182,052.80 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment, and the respondent was ordered to pay fifty per cent of the costs of the case.

Key legal issues

#
01

Reinstatement as a remedy for unfair redundancy

Holding

Reinstatement was refused as unfair in the circumstances.

Reasoning

The court weighed the respondent's capacity to provide work and found it apparently lacking, noted the respondent's goodwill to reengage if performance improved, and considered that reinstatement would require paying remuneration from termination to reinstatement. Since the grievants were engaged on renewable short periodic contracts of one to six months, reinstatement would be unfair to the respondent.

p. 2
02

Whether the redundancy was unfair

Holding

The redundancy was substantively defensible but procedurally unfair because the respondent did not follow the due process in the Employment Act, 2007; compensation of one month's gross salary per grievant was awarded.

Reasoning

The respondent cited unexpected mortalities and failure of croc egg collection, and headquarters directives to reduce management costs, as grounds for redundancy. However, the court found the respondent failed to follow the statutory redundancy process under the Employment Act, 2007. To compensate for that unfair termination, each grievant was awarded one month's gross salary, except Elly Otuoma whose fixed term contract had lapsed, and John Ngatia who had already accepted his dues.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer undertaking redundancy must follow the due process provided for in the Employment Act, 2007; failure to do so renders the termination unfair and attracts compensation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent
  2. 2.Respondent to pay the grievants a sum of Ksh. 182,052.80 plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
  3. 3.Respondent to pay fifty per cent of the costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Not specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction over the trade dispute referred to the Industrial Court after conciliation by the Minister of Labour; Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA GAME HUNTING AND SAFARIS WORKERS UNION V GALAXY CROCODILE FARM LTD [2012] KEELRC 88 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Cause No 289 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/88/eng@2012-11-02

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.