Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1973 of 2013· [2018] KEELRC 287 (KLR)

Charles Okwany & 10 others v Corn Products Kenya Limited [2018] KEELRC 287 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 December 2018
991 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 confirmed that employers who follow the legal redundancy steps - notice, leave pay, and severance - cannot be successfully sued for unfair termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Eleven former employees of Corn Products Kenya Limited, employed between 1985 and 2010 as Assistant Production Managers, claimed that their termination on account of redundancy on 23/7/2012 was unfair, illegal, wrongful and unlawful, and that their terminal dues were not properly paid or tabulated. They sought compensation for unfair termination, recalculation of severance pay using a formula of monthly salary multiplied by twelve times years worked less amounts paid, and gratuity for the period before joining the pension scheme. The respondent adduced no evidence, filing submissions only. Applying Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, the court found the redundancy notices were served on each claimant on 23/7/2012, termination letters issued a month later, and terminal dues including leave and severance pay set out and paid, with claimants signing a released discharge. The redundancy was therefore carried out following the proper procedure and the prayer for compensation was unfounded. The claimants' severance recalculation formula was held unknown and alien, severance being fixed by statute at 15 days pay per year worked. As members of a pension scheme and NSSF, the claimants were barred by Section 35(6) from claiming service pay or gratuity over and above pension. The claim was dismissed in its entirety with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination on account of redundancy was unfair and unlawful

Holding

The redundancy was lawful; claimants received one month notice, paid leave and severance pay, and signed releases

Reasoning

The court applied Section 40(1) of the Employment Act. Redundancy notices were served on 23/7/2012 and termination letters issued a month later, satisfying the notice requirement. Terminal dues including leave and severance pay were set out in termination letters and paid, and claimants signed a released discharge. The statutory conditions for a fair redundancy were therefore met.

p. 2
02

Whether severance pay required recalculation

Holding

No; the statutory formula of 15 days salary per year worked was correctly applied

Reasoning

The claimants sought a formula of salary multiplied by 12 times years worked minus amounts paid. The court held this formula is unknown and alien to the process, as Section 40 fixes severance at not less than 15 days pay for each completed year of service, which the respondent had already paid.

p. 2
03

Whether claimants were entitled to gratuity despite receiving pension

Holding

Not entitled; membership of a pension scheme and NSSF excludes service pay under Section 35(6)

Reasoning

Under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act, employees who are members of a pension scheme, NSSF or a service pay scheme established under a CBA are not entitled to service pay. The claimants admitted membership of the pension fund and receipt of pension, so gratuity over and above pension was not warranted.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Compliance with Section 40(1) of the Employment Act - due notice, payment of leave and severance pay - renders a redundancy lawful and fair
  • Severance pay on redundancy is calculated at 15 days salary for each completed year of service
  • Employees who are members of a pension scheme or NSSF are not entitled to service pay/gratuity under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Claimants' case dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to pay its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 40(1)
  • Employment ActSection 35(6)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act / ELRC Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Okwany & 10 others v Corn Products Kenya Limited [2018] KEELRC 287 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1973 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/287/eng@2018-12-20

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