Doris Kairuthi Kaaria & 59 others v Kenya Methodist University [2017] KEELRC 1941 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled the university's redundancy of 60 staff unlawful because it used no fair, objective selection criteria and never consulted the affected employees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants were selected for redundancy in accordance with section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007
No. The respondent failed to exhibit objective selection tools and procedures, did not establish that an objective criterion was uniformly and comparatively applied, and did not consult the employees to minimise terminations.
The respondent relied on a Human Resource Committee report but produced no scorecard, weighting or comparative analysis against section 40(1)(c) parameters (seniority in time, skill, ability and reliability). Individual claimants' evidence - e.g. a maternity-leave-affected performance score, a lecturer with prescribed qualifications targeted for lacking a doctorate, and an employee whose qualification records were incomplete - was unrebutted. Pastoral/psychological support arrangements fell short of the mandatory consultation requirement. Non-compliance was proved on a balance of probability.
Whether the claimants were entitled to reinstatement or compensation
Yes. Reinstatement was not barred because the respondent did not prove abolition of offices or notification of the Director of Employment. The court granted an election between payment of 6 months' gross salaries plus redundancy dues, or continuation in employment with the redundancy set aside.
The respondent alleged campus closures and abolished positions, but produced no evidence of notifying the Director of Employment under sections 76 and 77 of the Employment Act, and no demonstration that offices were actually abolished - the redundancy targeted individuals, not positions. The claimants had remained at work under interim orders, desired to remain in employment, and did not contribute to the respondent's failings. The court therefore framed alternative remedies with the respondent choosing by a deadline.
Legal principles established
#- An employer selecting employees for redundancy must demonstrate an objective selection criterion uniformly applied to all employees in the affected class, with a comparative analysis
- The employer must consult employees or their representatives before redundancy to avert or minimise terminations and mitigate adverse effects
- All the selection parameters in section 40(1)(c) must be applied together, not in the alternative
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the respondent in identifying the claimants did not comply with section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 as the redundancy was unfair, irregular and unprocedural
- 2.The respondent to pay each claimant 6 months' gross salaries at the prevailing gross salary as at 31.07.2017 together with all redundancy dues per section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 by 01.09.2017, failing interest at court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 3.In the alternative, declaration that the termination on account of redundancy was unfair, irregular or unprocedural, null and void; each claimant to continue in service in the position held with full prevailing and agreed remuneration and benefits, the redundancy decision being set aside as null and void ab initio
- 4.The respondent to exercise the option between orders (b) and (c) by filing and serving a notice by close of 31.07.2017, failing which it is deemed to have opted for continued employment, with claimants reporting on duty on 01.08.2017
- 5.The respondent to pay the claimants' costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007); suits filed by way of memorandum of claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Doris Kairuthi Kaaria & 59 others v Kenya Methodist University [2017] KEELRC 1941 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment (consolidated suits by 60 claimants, amended memorandum of claim dated 23.06.2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1941/eng@2017-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.