Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 17th October 2011, filed 19th October 2011· [2013] KEELRC 860 (KLR)

Nicholas Wachira Koigia v Ncr Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 860 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
30 September 2013
3,067 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a redundancy was unlawful only because the employer failed to notify the labour officer, awarding the employee Kshs.9.9 million in terminal dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed on 27th February 1986 and serving as Manager Professional Services, alleged unlawful and unfair termination of his employment through redundancy notified on 11th April 2011 and claimed terminal dues of about Kshs.18.3 million, later testified as Kshs.18,696,046, with interest and costs. The Respondent admitted the redundancy but asserted an agreed package of Kshs.9,928,408.78, which the Claimant declined to accept because he refused to sign an additional General Agreement and disclaimer; it also offered to withdraw the redundancy and reinstate him on a different docket, which he rejected. The court framed three issues: lawfulness of the redundancy, the entitlement as redundancy package, and interest and costs. On the first, it held section 40(1) of the Employment Act requires notification, not pre-decision consultation, and distinguished Aviation & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Airways; however, the admitted failure to notify the labour officer rendered the redundancy unlawful to that extent. On quantum, the court held severance pay is computed on basic salary, excluding car allowance; that ex-gratia is discretionary and cannot be imposed at a year's salary beyond what was negotiated (6 months); and that medical cover is claimable only upon illness, not payable in cash. It found the Respondent's tabulation of Kshs.9,928,408.78 correct, dismissed the Claimant's claim for the higher amounts, and directed the Respondent to pay the terminal benefits of Kshs.9,928,408.78. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment read in open court on 30th September 2013.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy of the Claimant was unlawful and unfair

Holding

The redundancy was unlawful only to the extent that the Respondent failed to notify the Labour Officer as required by section 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act; it was otherwise not unfair, as there is no legal requirement for consultation before the decision to declare redundancy.

Reasoning

Section 40(1) prescribes notification of the employee personally in writing and the labour officer, with one month's notice/pay and severance at not less than 15 days' pay per completed year. The court held the statute requires notification, not pre-decision consultation, distinguishing Aviation & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Airways. The Respondent admitted it did not notify the labour officer, a mandatory requirement, making the redundancy unlawful only on that ground.

p. 5
02

Whether severance pay should include the car allowance

Holding

No. Severance pay is calculated on basic salary only; the car allowance was a separate facility allowance, not part of wages or salary.

Reasoning

The Claimant previously had a company car which was withdrawn and replaced with a car allowance to facilitate customer visits. Pay is not defined in the Employment Act, but basic pay excludes allowances. The Claimant himself admitted that computed without car allowance the Respondent's calculation was correct.

p. 5
03

Whether the Claimant was entitled to 1 year's salary as ex-gratia and medical cover of Kshs.3,315,000

Holding

Both claims fail. Ex-gratia is discretionary and was negotiated and approved at 6 months' salary; medical cover is claimable only upon illness and utilization of medical attention, not payable in cash.

Reasoning

The Managing Director testified ex-gratia is normally 3 months' salary and he negotiated 6 months for the Claimant. Being discretionary, it could not found a legitimate expectation of a year's salary. The medical cover was an insurance-based inpatient scheme with in-house outpatient limits, and the Claimant submitted no medical claims, so no cash entitlement arose.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, an employer is not required to consult or notify the employee before the decision to declare redundancy is made; notification follows the decision.
  • Notification of the labour officer in writing of an intended redundancy is a mandatory requirement of section 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act; failure to notify renders the redundancy unlawful to that extent.
  • Severance pay under section 40(1)(g) is calculated on basic salary; allowances such as car allowance do not form part of basic pay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimant's terminal benefits of Kshs.9,928,408.78.
  2. 2.The Claimant's claim (for the higher figure of Kshs.18,696,046, 1 year's salary as ex-gratia, car allowance in severance computation, and medical cover) is dismissed.
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act; Memorandum of Claim filed 19th October 2011)

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, "Nicholas Wachira Koigia v Ncr Kenya Limited [2013] KEELRC 860 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Memorandum of Claim dated 17th October 2011, filed 19th October 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/860/eng@2013-09-30

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