Pauline Wanjuru W v Kenya Medical Research Institute [2019] KEELRC 1357 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KEMRI/CDC unfairly fired a woman on maternity leave, claiming false redundancy, and awarded her a full year's salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was on account of genuine redundancy or discrimination on account of pregnancy
The court found the claimed funding cut-off unproven and held the Claimant was discriminated against on account of pregnancy/maternity status
The Respondent asserted funding limitations ended the TB surveillance project, but RW1 conceded there was no evidence the Field Coordinator position in Kisumu had been vacated or that there was a funding limitation, and that the KEMRI/CDC programme was still running. The termination letter did not cite funding exhaustion, and the letter was delivered to the Claimant's house while she was on maternity/sick leave. The court therefore found the redundancy justification untrue and inferred discrimination.
Whether the termination was fair and justified
The termination was unfair and unjustified under Sections 41 and 45(2) of the Employment Act
The Claimant received a termination letter dated 17 May 2012 taking immediate effect, with no notice and no opportunity to be heard. Section 40 redundancy procedure (including notification of the Labour Officer) was not followed — RW1 conceded the Labour Officer was not informed. Section 45(2) requires the employer to prove a valid and fair reason and fair procedure, which the Respondent failed to do.
What remedies to award
Maximum compensation of 12 months' salary (KShs. 1,083,300) plus costs and interest
Given the manner in which the Claimant was treated while on maternity leave, the court found compensation on account of pregnancy and maternity status warranted and awarded the statutory maximum of 12 months' gross salary. Costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment were also awarded. Notice pay and leave dues had already been paid in the final dues of KShs. 120,391.39.
Legal principles established
#- An employer alleging redundancy must adduce evidence that funding or operational requirements actually ceased; in the absence of such evidence, termination of an employee on maternity leave is treated as discrimination on account of pregnancy
- A termination is unfair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure
- Even where a contract is subject to availability of funds, an employer must notify the employee and give ample notice before terminating on that account
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary for the unfair and unlawful termination: 12 x 90,275 = KShs. 1,083,300
- 2.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 3.Interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; Article 41 of the Constitution on fair labour practices invoked in the determination
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.
- Rose Wambui Karanja v Aberdare Engineering Limited [2020] KEELRC 1688 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1688 (KLR)29 Jan 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pauline Wanjuru W v Kenya Medical Research Institute [2019] KEELRC 1357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim filed 18th May 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1357/eng@2019-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.