Karen Karagania Njuguna v Longhorn Publishers Kenya [2020] KEELRC 449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's 'redundancy' was fake because her job was refilled within a month, awarding her nine months' salary as compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a genuine redundancy situation
There was no redundancy situation; the position was not genuinely abolished but refilled, rendering the termination unjustified
The court compared the Claimant's letter of appointment and job description with the advertisement for the post of Chief Human Resource Officer, which was advertised within a month of the redundancy. The Respondent did not deny that the duties of the new post were similar to those the Claimant performed. The alleged merger with the Finance department was unsupported, as the new holder's duties remained Human Resource in nature and both positions reported to the Managing Director. Under Section 2 of the Employment Act, redundancy requires that an employee's services be superfluous; refilling the same post negates this.
Whether due process was followed in the redundancy
The procedural requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 were followed and the process was procedurally proper
The Claimant conceded on cross-examination that she received a redundancy notice duly acknowledged by the Labour Officer, that the notice took effect from 4/5/2013 with reasons clearly indicated, and that she was paid her terminal dues of Kshs.1,291,047.50/- and issued a Certificate of Service. The court therefore found the Section 40 procedure compliant. The failure was substantive only - the absence of a valid reason - which grounded the award of compensation rather than a finding of procedural unfairness.
What remedies flow from the substantively unfair termination
Compensation equivalent to 9 months' salary was reasonable, plus costs and interest
Having found the termination flawed for lack of valid reasons, the court exercised its discretion to award compensation for 9 months' salary. It noted the Claimant had already been paid her redundancy dues and that procedure was proper, so compensation was the appropriate remedy. The Respondent was also ordered to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- A real redundancy situation requires a valid and genuine reason, and where an employer declares a position redundant but then employs someone else to fill the same post, no redundancy exists
- An employee may succeed on compensation for unfair termination on account of redundancy where no valid reason existed, even though the procedural requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act were complied with
Court orders
#- 1.Award of compensation to the Claimant of 9 months' salary (9 x 377,955 = 4,401,595/= less statutory deductions)
- 2.Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 3.Interest on costs at Court rates with effect from the date of the judgement
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and the Employment Act, 2007
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.
- Ratemo v Teachers Service Commission (Petition E162 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 835 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 835 (KLR)14 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karen Karagania Njuguna v Longhorn Publishers Kenya [2020] KEELRC 449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 491 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/449/eng@2020-09-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.