Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause Number 42 of 2013· [2015] KEELRC 514 (KLR)

James H. Mudanya & 26 others v Flech Vieh Cattle Breeders Limited [2015] KEELRC 514 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya at Mombasa
25 September 2015
JRJames Rika
1,723 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court dismissed 27 ex-employees' redundancy claim because their employer paid the full statutory package and they could not prove any extra entitlements.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Twenty-seven Claimants, formerly guards and employees of Flech Vieh Cattle Breeders Limited, sued their former employer alleging that on 15th February 2013 it terminated their contracts by way of redundancy without adequate notice, and sought a declaration of unfair and wrongful termination, reinstatement, compensation for lost earnings, general damages, costs and interest. Three Claimants testified; the Respondent's former Manager Evans Onzore testified that redundancies were declared on the advice of the Federation of Kenya Employers, that packages totalling Kshs. 444,666 were computed and paid in full through the Claimants' Advocates, and that the Labour Office was notified. The Court found the Statement of Claim extremely sketchy, disjointed from the evidence, and unsupported by details of the terminal dues claimed. It rejected the Claimants' assertion that the Court had on 21st August 2013 suggested a sum of Kshs. 1,310,896 as final dues, noting the record only directed continued negotiations. The witnesses were found not straightforward: they contradicted themselves on receipt of termination letters, reasons for termination and union membership, and some continued working for the renamed or successor company, Kilifi Limited/Kilifi Hills. The termination letters offered the minimum redundancy package under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. Reinstatement was impossible as the Respondent was no longer in business. The claim was dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy was lawful

Holding

The termination letters provided the minimum statutory redundancy benefits under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007

Reasoning

The letters of termination offered payment of days worked, accrued annual leave, one month's salary in lieu of notice, and severance pay at 15 days' pay per completed year of service. The Court found this satisfied the statutory minimum redundancy package, and the Claimants failed to demonstrate any further unpaid entitlements.

p. 4
02

Whether the Claimants proved unfair termination and loss

Holding

The Claimants were not straightforward witnesses and their claim was not supported by pleadings or evidence

Reasoning

The witnesses gave contradictory evidence on receipt of termination letters, reasons for termination and union membership. They continued working for the renamed/successor company, undermining claims of lost earnings. New matters introduced in closing submissions, such as Vision 2030 and High Court orders, were not in the pleadings or evidence.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination letters paying days worked, accrued leave, one month's notice pay and 15 days' severance per completed year of service meet the minimum statutory redundancy package under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007
  • Reinstatement is not available where the employer company is no longer in existence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is dismissed with no order on the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act 2007Section 40
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rule 27(1)(a)
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction under the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010, Rule 27(1)(a), over an employment dispute (redundancy)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James H. Mudanya & 26 others v Flech Vieh Cattle Breeders Limited [2015] KEELRC 514 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause Number 42 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/514/eng@2015-09-25

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