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· [2016] KEELRC 163 (KLR)

Eddah Auma Odede v Hartlane Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause 303 of 2014) (Employment and Labour) [2016] KEELRC 163 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 December 2016
1,047 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that skipping redundancy notice and severance rules makes a dismissal unfair, costing the employer over Kshs.119,000 plus interest and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed from 1st April 2013 as a cashier and storekeeper earning Kshs.12,000 monthly, reported to work on 8th February 2014 and was told her services were no longer required, with no reasons given and no further communication. She sued for notice pay, salary arrears, leave, house allowance, overtime, underpayments and public holiday pay, claiming her termination on account of redundancy was unlawful and unfair. The respondent admitted the employment but disputed the position and salary, contending she was a general labourer on a minimum wage plus house allowance, that the redundancy was in terms of section 40(1) of the Employment Act, and that she declined to collect dues offered. The respondent filed written submissions but did not appear at the hearing. The court framed two issues: whether the redundancy was for a valid reason and fair procedure, and whether the reliefs were due. It found no notice of redundancy was given, the labour office was not notified one month prior, no reasons for selection were given, and no mandatory severance was paid, violating section 40(1) and rendering the termination unfair under section 45(1). The court found the gross salary to be Kshs.12,000, awarded one month's notice pay and five months' compensation under section 49(1)(c), plus uncontested reliefs for salary arrears, untaken leave, overtime and five public holidays, entering judgment for Kshs.119,993.04 with interest at court rates from filing, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the redundancy declaration

Holding

The redundancy was procedurally flawed and substantively unfair; no notice, no labour office notification, no reasons given and no severance paid

Reasoning

The claimant was told her services were no longer required without notice of intended redundancy, without reasons for her selection, and without notification of the labour office one month prior as required by section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Severance pay, described as mandatory, was not paid. The termination therefore violated section 40(1) and was unfair under section 45(1).

p. 3
02

Entitlement to compensation for unfair termination

Holding

Claimant awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice and five months' salary as compensation under section 49(1)(c), based on a gross monthly salary of Kshs.12,000

Reasoning

Having served only ten months and lost prospects of career growth and income, and being unprepared for termination with no fault of her own, the claimant merited compensation. The court found the gross monthly salary to be Kshs.12,000, rejecting the higher figure claimed and the respondent's lower minimum-wage figure.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Notice of intended termination on account of redundancy must be given to the employee and the labour office notified at least one month prior, and severance pay is mandatory; failure violates section 40(1) of the Employment Act and renders the termination unfair under section 45(1)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant in the sum of Kshs.119,993.04
  2. 2.The award to be paid with interest at court rates from date of filing suit till payment in full
  3. 3.The respondent to pay costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (suit for unfair termination and terminal benefits)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eddah Auma Odede v Hartlane Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause 303 of 2014)  (Employment and Labour) [2016] KEELRC 163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/163/eng@2016-12-20

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