Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELRC 1968 (KLR)

Rodney Eshiwani Onyango v Eldoret Mattress Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 1968 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 September 2017
RSRadido Stephen
899 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

#

A Kenyan court ruled an employer's redundancy was unfair because it skipped legally required notices and could not prove financial hardship, awarding the worker over Kshs 328,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Rodney Eshiwani Onyango, sued Eldoret Mattress Ltd and Daniel Ngugi t/a Kamtinga Services Ltd for breach of contract/unfair termination of his employment. The Respondents maintained that his contract was terminated on account of redundancy due to economic and financial difficulties, with all statutory conditions met. The Court condensed the eight agreed issues into three: identity of the employer, fairness of the redundancy, and the overtime claim. On the first, the Court found both Respondents liable, as the 2nd Respondent was a recruiting agent through whom salaries were paid and final dues were acknowledged as paid by Kamtinga Services Ltd. On fairness, the Court found the termination procedurally impaired: there was no evidence of the one-month written notice to the local labour officer and employee required by section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007, no disclosed selection criteria, and no proof of the alleged economic difficulties under sections 43 and 45. On overtime, the Court took judicial notice that supermarkets do not ordinarily close at 5.00 pm, preferred the Claimant's account of working until 8.00 pm, and inferred unpaid overtime; the Respondents, as custodians of employment records, did not controvert the computations. Remedies: pay in lieu of notice and service benefits were refused as already paid; overtime of Kshs 304,050/- and compensation equivalent to two months' gross wages (Kshs 24,400/-) were awarded, totalling Kshs 328,450/-, with costs to the Claimant. Judgment delivered at Eldoret on 29 September 2017 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of the employer

Holding

Both Respondents are liable to the Claimant for the causes of action presented

Reasoning

The 2nd Respondent testified that he was a recruiting agent for the 1st Respondent, recruiting and managing employees for it, and that the 1st Respondent paid salaries through him. The Acknowledgment of Final Dues produced indicated the dues were paid by Kamtinga Services Ltd. On that testimony and document, the Court found both Respondents liable.

p. 2
02

Fairness of the redundancy termination

Holding

The termination on account of redundancy was procedurally unfair

Reasoning

There was no evidence of notification to the local labour office as required by section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007, no disclosed criteria for selecting the Claimant for redundancy, and no consideration of redeployment options in branches that remained open. The Respondents also failed to prove the economic and financial difficulties they alleged, contrary to sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.

p. 2
03

Overtime claim

Holding

The Court inferred that the Claimant worked overtime without pay and awarded the claimed Kshs 304,050/-

Reasoning

The 2nd Respondent's assertion that the supermarket closed at 5.00 pm was improbable; the Court took judicial notice that supermarkets do not ordinarily close at 5.00 pm. The Claimant's account of working from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm was more probable. The Respondents, as custodians of employment records under sections 10 and 74 of the Employment Act, did not controvert the computations.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In redundancy, an employer must give one month's written notice to both the local labour officer and the employee under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007
  • An employer must demonstrate the criteria used to select employees to be declared redundant, such as Last In First Out
  • An employer bears the burden of proving the operational reasons leading to redundancy and the economic/financial difficulties relied upon
  • Respondents as custodians of employment records bear responsibility for records and non-controverted computations may be allowed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Respondents to pay the Claimant overtime of Kshs 304,050/-
  2. 2.Respondents to pay the Claimant compensation of Kshs 24,400/- (equivalent of 2 months' gross wages)
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs 328,450/-
  4. 4.Claimant to have costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 40
  • Employment Act, 2007section 43
  • Employment Act, 2007section 45
  • Employment Act, 2007section 10
  • Employment Act, 2007section 74
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (statutory employment dispute; no constitutional article cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rodney Eshiwani Onyango v Eldoret Mattress Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 1968 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1968/eng@2017-09-29

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