Andrew Muholo Teyie v Nation Media Group Limited [2019] KEELRC 1503 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan media house's flawed redundancy cost it over Kshs 4.2 million after a court found it unfairly terminated an investigative editor.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act in declaring redundancy
The respondent failed to notify the labour officer as required and gave no reason for not giving a month's notice or for paying in lieu of notice, so the redundancy was procedurally unfair
Section 40(1)(b) read with section 40(1)(a) requires an employee declared redundant to be given reasons for and the extent of the intended redundancy not less than one month before termination, and the labour officer must be notified. The termination letter of 4 March 2016 took effect immediately, and the respondent offered payment in lieu of notice without explaining why the statutory notice was not given. The court, following Thomas De La Rue, held the same notice period applies to non-unionisable employees and that payment in lieu is not sanctioned by the section unless the employee elects it.
Whether the redundancy was genuine or a pretext
The procedural failures lent credence to the claimant's allegation that his separation was motivated by discomfort over his corruption-related investigative stories
The claimant alleged that his reporting on NYS, KRA and Eurobond corruption created tension with the Editor-in-Chief, who directed him to go slow on sensitive stories, and that an email of 2 December 2015 instructed staff to desist from further Eurobond reporting. While the respondent pleaded reorganisation of the Editorial Department, its unexplained failure to observe the mandatory statutory notice requirements supported the claimant's contention that the redundancy was used to rid itself of an inconvenient journalist.
Legal principles established
#- A non-unionisable employee declared redundant is entitled to the same one-month notice as a unionisable employee, on a purposive reading of section 40 of the Employment Act
- Payment in lieu of redundancy notice is not provided for under section 40 and should only occur where the employee elects it
- Failure to comply with the mandatory conditions of section 40 renders a redundancy an unfair termination
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's service was unfair
- 2.Award of ten months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, being Kshs 4,265,390, subject to taxes and statutory deductions
- 3.Interest at court rates on the award from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act); judgment does not cite the specific constitutional provision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Andrew Muholo Teyie v Nation Media Group Limited [2019] KEELRC 1503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1503/eng@2019-05-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.