John K. Otieno v G.E. East Africa Services Limited [2021] KEELRC 722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a redundancy dismissal because the employer consulted the employee, offered him another job, and paid his dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Justifiability of the redundancy
The Respondent had valid, fair and justifiable reasons for terminating the Claimant's employment arising from global restructuring that resulted in abolition of his position
The Respondent demonstrated that economic, technological, organizational and structural changes in its Power Business Unit necessitated a global restructuring that abolished the position of Senior Development Leader. The restructuring combined functions so the company did not have to pay two people to perform the same functions. The court accepted that the redundancy was genuine notwithstanding the Claimant's contention that some roles were taken over by another employee.
Procedural compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act
The court accepted the Respondent's submission that the substance of the statutory notices - consultation and consideration of redeployment - was attained even though the notice to the labour office was not exhibited
The Claimant argued that no notice of intention to declare redundancy was issued to him or to the Labour Officer as required by Section 40. The Respondent submitted that the purposes of the notices were to allow consultations and ascertain possible redeployment, and that these purposes were attained since the Claimant was offered another role and knew of the redundancy as early as February 2017. The court adopted this purposive view and found the suit unmerited.
Whether performance of the Claimant's functions by another employee negates redundancy
The court found against the Claimant on this issue, accepting that not the full scope of his role was taken over and that some functions were outsourced
The Claimant testified that Fatima White took over the exact work he performed, contending this defeated redundancy. The Respondent's witness conceded some roles were taken over by Fatima but maintained she held a separate GGO role and that the full scope was not taken over, with some roles outsourced. The Claimant had also been offered a senior alternative position with better remuneration, which he refused on unreasonable conditions.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant who was aware of an intended redundancy, was offered alternative employment which he declined, and received his dues including redundancy pay and bonuses, cannot maintain a claim of unfair termination
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (employment dispute under the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John K. Otieno v G.E. East Africa Services Limited [2021] KEELRC 722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause 19 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/722/eng@2021-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.