Rachel Asiko Angatia & 3 others v Heritage Insurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to strike out a redundancy case, ruling that even Court of Appeal decisions can be ignored if they overlooked the law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2016 under stare decisis
The court declined to follow the decision, finding it was made per incuriam because it ignored prior Court of Appeal authorities on section 40 redundancy notification and the mandatory provisions of sections 26 and 40 of the Employment Act
The court reviewed Black's Law Dictionary and Ernst & Young v Capital Markets Authority, holding that a court may depart from a binding decision for strong reason, such as where the prior decision was given without consideration of a statute or binding authority. On perusal, Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2016 failed to consider the mandatory one-month notice under section 40(1)(a) and (b) and section 26 basic minimums, relying only on the 15-day notice in the employer's Staff Handbook. It was therefore per incuriam and not binding.
Whether the claimants' suit is res judicata vis-a-vis ELRC No. 781 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2016
The suit is not res judicata because the earlier Court of Appeal decision was per incuriam and not binding, leaving the fairness of the redundancy open for determination
Having found the decision in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2016 per incuriam, the court reasoned that a non-binding decision cannot found res judicata. The legality and fairness of the 30.4.2015 redundancy therefore remains open for determination with due regard to section 40 of the Employment Act and the previous decisions on mandatory redundancy notification.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of stare decisis is not absolute; a court may depart from an otherwise binding decision made per incuriam, i.e. in ignorance of a statute or binding authority it ought to have considered
- Notification of redundancy to the employee (or trade union) and the area labour officer under section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act is mandatory, and section 26 sets basic minimum terms that cannot be ousted by less favourable contract terms
- A suit is not res judicata where the earlier decision relied on was made per incuriam and is not binding
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the respondent's notice of motion dated 7th March 2018
- 2.Costs of the application to the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC; the impugned redundancy falls under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Onyango & 23 others v Heritage Insurance Company Limited[2021] KESC 56 (KLR)24 Mar 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rachel Asiko Angatia & 3 others v Heritage Insurance Company Limited [2018] KEELRC 964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELRC suit (application dated 7 March 2018) - not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/964/eng@2018-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.