Lillian Nyambura Nduati v Highlands Mineral Water Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded an employee Kshs 300,000 after finding her 'redundancy' was fake and her employer skipped legally required steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy was lawful and the termination fair
The termination was unfair and unlawful for want of a valid reason and non-compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act.
The claimant's job duties continued to exist; other staff were retained while she, a long-serving employee, was selected without fair criteria. No notice was given to the labour officer under section 40(1)(b). The respondent produced no evidence of genuine reorganisation or of a new hire with the alleged technical qualifications. The discharge signed for final dues could not waive the employer's obligations.
Whether the signed discharge/final dues settlement barred the claim
No - a discharge signed by an employee does not relieve an employer of its statutory obligations.
Following Charles Nyangi Nyamohanga v Action Aid International and Simon Muguku Gichigi v Taifa Sacco Limited, the court held that employers cannot escape their obligations to employees by relying on a discharge signed by the employee, particularly where the termination itself was unfair and procedural requirements under the Employment Act were breached.
What remedies the claimant was entitled to
Twelve months' gross pay as compensation under section 49(1)(c), being Kshs. 300,000.00 at Kshs. 25,000.00 per month, plus costs.
The court considered the claimant's long service since the 1990s and the aggravating factor that the respondent failed to notify the labour officer and the director of employment; there were no mitigating factors. Compensation was awarded as prayed for.
Legal principles established
#- A purported waiver/discharge signed by an employee will not relieve an employer of its obligations where the termination was unfair.
- An employer invoking redundancy must comply with section 40 of the Employment Act, including notification of the labour officer and fair selection criteria.
- Where no valid reason for termination exists, termination is unfair under section 43 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the respondent's termination of the claimant's employment on alleged grounds of redundancy was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 300,000.00 by 1.05.2016, failing interest at court rates payable thereon from the date of judgment till full payment
- 3.The respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Amos Kioko Musyoka & 7 others v Cmc Motors Group Limited [2022] KEELRC 1088 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1088 (KLR)3 Jan 2022
- Caroline Atieno Osweta v Bake & Bite Mombasa Limited [2016] KEELRC 725 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 725 (KLR)9 Sept 2016applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lillian Nyambura Nduati v Highlands Mineral Water Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 91 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1495/eng@2016-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.