Peter Mbaka Omeru & 16 others v Crown Industries Limited [2020] KEELRC 205 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled 17 workers' redundancy was unfair because they got no notice, awarding each 10 months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimants were unlawfully and unfairly declared redundant
Yes. The termination letters cited 'current economic situation', fitting the statutory definition of redundancy, but the Respondent gave the Claimants no notice of the redundancy, contrary to Section 40 of the Employment Act, rendering the redundancy unfair.
The termination letters dated 22/8/2013 took effect the same day, showing no notice was given to the Claimants. Although the Labour Officer was notified, the individual employees received no notice, which Section 40(1)(b) requires. Payment obligations were also not itemised with any breakdown of dues paid. Compliance with Section 40 is mandatory before termination on account of redundancy.
Whether the Claimants are entitled to the remedies sought
Partially. The court awarded 10 months' salary compensation for unfair termination for each Claimant (total Kshs. 2,051,083), but declined overtime and leave claims, and did not award the full sum claimed.
The court found overtime was already paid per payslips and leave had been taken per the Respondent's documents. For the unfair redundancy, the court exercised its discretion under the Employment Act to award compensation equivalent to 10 months' salary per Claimant rather than the pleaded Kshs. 13,668,553 or the 12 months sought.
Legal principles established
#- An employer terminating on grounds of redundancy must strictly comply with all conditions in Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, including giving the affected employees notice; failure to do so renders the redundancy unlawful and unfair
- Notification to the Labour Officer alone does not satisfy Section 40 where the affected employees themselves were given no notice
Court orders
#- 1.Damages for unfair termination equivalent to 10 months' salary for each of the 17 Claimants, totalling Kshs. 2,051,083
- 2.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
- 3.Claim for overtime dues not granted
- 4.Claim for leave not taken not granted
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance claim for unfair and unlawful dismissal under the Employment Act, 2007 (court established under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Mbaka Omeru & 16 others v Crown Industries Limited [2020] KEELRC 205 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (suit instituted August 2015; Amended Memorandum of Claim dated 29 March 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/205/eng@2020-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.