Isaiah Eyahonga Eshikati v Social Services League MP Shah Hospital [2015] KEELRC 1162 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan hospital's poorly handled redundancy cost it 13 months' salary because it skipped the Employment Act's mandatory notice steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was declared redundant or resigned
The Claimant was declared redundant; the assertion that he resigned did not accord with the correspondence of 14/3/2011
The Respondent's letter of 14/3/2011 informed the Claimant that his position was no longer required due to restructuring and set out severance pay at 15 days per completed year of service. The same day, the Claimant requested unpaid study leave, which the Respondent rejected while accepting his resignation. The court found the resignation narrative inconsistent with these communications and concluded the Claimant was declared redundant.
Whether due procedure was followed in the redundancy
Due process was not followed; the employer failed to give the Claimant the requisite notice under Section 40(1)(f) and the notice to the Labour Officer did not conform to Section 40(1)(b)
Under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, notice of redundancy must be given to the employee personally in writing and to the labour officer simultaneously, not less than a month before the termination date. Here the Claimant was informed on 14/3/2011, the effective date, and the letter to the Labour Officer of 14/2/2011 was not served simultaneously as envisaged. The court found procedural non-compliance.
Entitlement to medical expenses reimbursement
Reimbursement was capped at Kshs.100,000/= per annum; the claim beyond that was unsupported
The Respondent's medical policy document dated 11/2/1998 provided medical treatment at 25% employees' participation in outpatient and 50% inpatient subject to a ceiling of Kshs.100,000/= per annum per family. The Claimant's contention of a 75% employee rate was not supported by any evidence, and he admitted in cross-examination that he produced no evidence of the alleged change. The claim beyond the amount paid therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer declaring redundancy must comply with the conditions in Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, including giving the employee not less than one month's notice or wages in lieu; failure entitles the employee to one month's salary in lieu of notice.
- A redundancy not conducted in accordance with Section 40(1) is unfair and may attract compensation of up to 12 months' salary.
Court orders
#- 1.Claimant awarded 1 month salary in lieu of notice equivalent to Kshs.101,400/=
- 2.Claimant awarded 12 months salary for the unfair redundancy, Kshs.1,216,800/=, total Kshs.1,318,200/=
- 3.Respondent to meet costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Section 40(1) applied); no specific constitutional provision cited
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 1162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 1077 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1162/eng@2015-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.