Isaiah Eyahonga Eshikati v Social Services League, MP Shah Hospital [2015] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan hospital's flawed redundancy process cost it 13 months of an employee's salary because it failed to give proper notice under the Employment Act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was declared redundant or resigned
The Claimant was declared redundant; the Respondent's assertion that he resigned was inconsistent with the contemporaneous correspondence
The letter of 14/3/2011 expressly informed the Claimant his position was no longer required due to structural re-organization and set out severance entitlements. On the same day the Claimant sought unpaid study leave, which the Respondent declined while accepting his resignation and paying dues. The court held the resignation narrative did not flow from this communication, concluding the Claimant was in fact declared redundant.
Whether due procedure under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act was followed
Due process was not followed; the Claimant was not given the requisite notice of redundancy
Under Section 40(1)(f) the employer must pay not less than one month's notice or wages in lieu, and under Section 40(1)(b) notice to the labour officer must be served simultaneously with personal notice to the employee. The Claimant was informed of the redundancy only on 14/3/2011, and the notice to the Labour Officer of 14/2/2011 did not conform. The requisite notice to the Claimant was therefore not given.
Entitlement to medical expenses reimbursement
Medical reimbursement was payable only up to a ceiling of Kshs.100,000/= per annum; the claim beyond the amount paid was not tenable
The Respondent's Appendix 10 dated 11/2/1998 provided for medical treatment at 25% employee participation for outpatient and 50% inpatient subject to a ceiling of Kshs.100,000/= per annum per family. The Claimant's contention that the benefit was 75% of cost was not supported by any evidence, and he admitted in cross-examination he had no evidence of any such change.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must serve notice of intended redundancy simultaneously on the employee personally and the labour officer as envisaged under Section 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act
- Failure to give the requisite one month's notice of redundancy under Section 40(1)(f) entitles the employee to one month's salary in lieu of notice
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs.101,400/= awarded to the Claimant
- 2.Twelve months' salary for the unfair redundancy awarded (Kshs.1,216,800/), total award Kshs.1,318,200/=
- 3.Respondent to meet the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (claim for unfair termination/redundancy and terminal dues); Employment Act, Section 40(1)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isaiah Eyahonga Eshikati v Social Services League, MP Shah Hospital [2015] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 1077 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1159/eng@2015-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.