Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2014] KEELRC 817 (KLR)

Linnet Ndolo v Registered Trustees of the National Council of Churches of Kenya [2014] KEELRC 817 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
7 February 2014
4,120 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that skipping the required one-month redundancy notice makes a dismissal unfair, awarding the employee a full year's salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this first-instance Industrial Court claim, Justice Linnet Ndolo sued the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK) over the termination of her 20-year employment as Director, Human Resources and Administration, effected on 9th December 2011 by a letter titled 'TRANSITION FROM COUNCIL EMPLOYMENT' declaring her position redundant. She alleged the redundancy was a sham motivated by her objection to the composition of a disciplinary panel. NCCK defended the redundancy as a genuine restructuring approved by its Executive Committee, three director positions having been phased out. The court, per Hon. Lady Justice M. Onyango, who addressed the delicacy of deciding a sister Judge's claim, framed two issues: the lawfulness of the redundancy and entitlement to remedies. Applying Section 40 of the Employment Act and following the Court of Appeal's decision in Thomas De La Rue, the court held that the claimant, a non-union employee, was entitled to one month's notification of the intended redundancy, which she never received; she first learned of the redundancy from the termination letter itself, and only the termination notice was copied to the Labour Officer. The urgency and unexplained circumstances lent credence to her malice allegation. The redundancy was therefore unprocedural and amounted to unfair termination. On remedies, the court dismissed claims for salary for the unexpired term of her fixed-term contract, anticipatory wages from SMEP, notice pay from SMEP DTM Ltd (SMEP being a separate legal entity and the claimant not its employee), accrued gratuity and balance of gratuity, applying the principle that remedies must be proportionate and the claimant must mitigate. The leave claim was spent. The court awarded maximum compensation of 12 months' salary (Kshs.2,764,800/=) under Section 49(1)(c), plus costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's redundancy was fair and lawful

Holding

The redundancy was unprocedural and amounted to unfair termination because the claimant received no notification of the intended redundancy at least one month before it was effected, and only the termination notice (not the redundancy notification) was copied to the Labour Officer.

Reasoning

Section 40(1) of the Employment Act requires two separate notices: notification of intention to declare redundancy at least one month prior (to the employee or union and the labour officer), and a termination notice. The claimant first learned of the redundancy from the termination letter itself, delivered at night on the day of the meeting. The urgency and unexplained circumstances raised doubt about the motive and lent credence to the claimant's allegation of malice, especially as only her position was substantively affected.

p. 4
02

Notification obligations under Section 40 for non-union employees

Holding

Following the Court of Appeal in Thomas De La Rue, a non-union employee is entitled to the same one month's notice of redundancy as a union member.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Court of Appeal's purposive interpretation that Sections 40(a) and 40(b) provide two different notification routes depending on union membership, but the same one-month notice period applies in both situations, since there is no rational reason for a non-union employee to receive shorter notice. The distinction is underpinned by Article 41(2)(c) of the Constitution and the voluntary nature of union membership under the Labour Relations Act.

p. 4
03

Remedies for unfair termination

Holding

The claimant was awarded maximum compensation of 12 months' salary under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, but claims for anticipatory salaries, unexpired-term wages, SMEP notice pay and further gratuity were dismissed.

Reasoning

Having found unfair termination, the court considered Section 49(4) factors: 20 years of service, the manner of termination, the position held and reasonable expectations, and awarded maximum compensation of 12 months' salary (Kshs.2,764,800/=). Anticipatory salary claims were rejected on the principle that remedies must redress economic injury proportionately and employees must mitigate; the claimant had moved on and could not receive both general damages and anticipatory salaries. SMEP claims failed because SMEP is a separate legal entity and the claimant was not its employee.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who is not a member of a trade union is entitled to the same one month's notification of redundancy as a union member, on a purposive reading of Section 40 of the Employment Act (following Thomas De La Rue).
  • Redundancy carried out without the one month notification required by Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act is unprocedural and constitutes unfair termination.
  • Employment remedies must be proportionate to economic injuries suffered; anticipatory salaries and general damages cannot both be awarded for the same termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination in the sum of Kshs.2,764,800/= under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act.
  2. 2.The respondent shall pay the claimant's costs of this case.
  3. 3.Interest payable at court rates from the date of judgment.
  4. 4.No orders in respect of the accrued leave claim, which was spent.
  5. 5.Dismissal of claims for salary for unexpired term of contract, anticipatory wages from SMEP, 3 months' notice pay from SMEP DTM Ltd, gratuity accrued on the 2011/2012 contract, and balance of gratuity of Kshs.150,000/=.
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Industrial Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Linnet Ndolo v Registered Trustees of the National Council of Churches of Kenya [2014] KEELRC 817 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/817/eng@2014-02-07

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