Raphael Muchunu Mwangi v Dhl Excel Supply Chain (K) Ltd [2015] KEELRC 1049 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled DHL's redundancy process was unfair for skipping mandatory steps, but awarded only one month's salary as compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy declaring the claimant's position redundant was conducted in accordance with section 40 of the Employment Act
The redundancy process was flawed - consultations with affected employees were not proved and the process was not reported to the Labour Officer - so the termination was unfair
The court held that redundancy is a sensitive process regulated by section 40, requiring genuine business reasons, consultations, a pre-set selection criteria, and involvement of the Labour Officer. The respondent could not prove consultations took place before issuing the notice, there was no record of other affected employees, and the process was not reported to the Labour Officer. The mandatory statutory provisions not being followed, the termination was unfair.
What remedies flow from the unfair redundancy
Compensation of one month's salary was appropriate given the claimant's refusal to apply for available jobs and the generous terminal dues already paid; plus pay for 2 days worked
The court took into account that the claimant was given an opportunity to apply for redeployment but declined, and that terminal dues including notice pay and above-minimum severance pay were paid promptly. Balancing these factors, one month's salary was deemed appropriate compensation. The respondent's payment breakdown did not include pay for the 2 days worked in November 2012, which was awarded.
Whether the claimant was entitled to house allowance, relocation allowance and bonus
All three claims declined: salary was consolidated, relocation allowance was a CBA benefit not applicable to a non-unionised employee, and bonuses are discretionary
The contract of service expressly provided a consolidated salary, so house allowance could not be claimed separately. The relocation allowance arose under a collective bargaining agreement, but the claimant admitted he was not unionised and the benefit was not in his individual contract. Bonuses, being discretionary unless already allocated and communicated, could not be pursued as a right.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act involves mandatory steps including consultation, a pre-set criteria, and reporting to the Labour Officer; non-compliance renders the termination unfair and curable by damages
- Failure to follow section 40's mandatory provisions results in an unfair termination
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination on account of redundancy was unfair
- 2.Compensation awarded at Kshs.230,786.00
- 3.Pay for 2 days worked in November 2012 at Kshs.15,385.70
- 4.Certificate of Service be issued unconditionally within 7 days, and where the Claimant cannot collect it personally, be sent to his last known postal address on the 14th day
- 5.Monies payable subject to the provisions of section 49(2) of the Employment Act
- 6.Claimant awarded 50% of his costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (section 40 and section 49)
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.
- Gladys Agayo v Somak Travel Ltd [2015] KEELRC 122 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 122 (KLR)12 Nov 2015
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raphael Muchunu Mwangi v Dhl Excel Supply Chain (K) Ltd [2015] KEELRC 1049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 1343 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1049/eng@2015-05-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.