George Otieno Rambo v Nation Media Group Limited [2021] KEELRC 899 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Nation Media's redundancy was unfair, awarding a former Brand Manager nine months' gross salary but requiring him to repay his car loan.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination on redundancy was procedurally fair
Not procedurally fair - no proper redundancy notice under section 40(1) and no consultation
The letter of 31st August 2015 was a termination letter, not a redundancy notice, and the letters to the employee (1 day) and labour officer (4 days) fell far short of the mandatory one-month notice under section 40(1). No evidence of consultation was tendered, and the Respondent's witness admitted unawareness of any consultation. The court held that non-unionised employees enjoy equal protection and that two notices and consultation are required.
Whether the termination was substantively fair
Not substantively fair - the Respondent failed to prove the validity of the alleged redundancy
Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place the burden on the employer to prove the reason for termination. The Respondent merely asserted a 'review of the Radio business strategy' without tendering evidence of what the review entailed, the selection criteria, alternatives considered, or the extent of the redundancy. The court formed the uncomfortable feeling that the true reason was not operational requirement.
What compensation is payable under section 49(1)(c)
Nine months' gross salary awarded, computed on gross salary of Kshs.193,801.00
The court considered the extent of the Respondent's deviation from the law, the breach of fair labour practices, the disguised reason for termination, the Claimant's lack of alternative employment, the no-fault nature of the termination and the reasonable expectation of continued employment. Gross salary includes allowances, so the Kshs.193,801 figure applied for compensation and August salary, while basic salary applied to contractual notice, service pay and leave.
Whether the Respondent's counterclaim succeeds
Partially allowed - car loan balance of Kshs.1,040,625.00 awarded; insurance and travel advance refused as unproved special damages
The Claimant admitted owing the car loan balance, and his argument that the termination excused repayment was rejected as implying a right to employment for life. The car insurance balance and travel advance, being special damages, were not specifically proved and were therefore refused.
Legal principles established
#- Section 40(1) of the Employment Act contemplates two notices prior to redundancy, each of not less than one month, whether or not the employee is a union member
- A non-unionised employee is entitled to the same protection as a unionised one, per constitutional equality
- Consultation prior to declaration of redundancy is mandatory
- An employer must do more than merely state a reason such as 'strategy review'; validity of the reason must be demonstrated
- Compensation under section 49(1)(c) is computed on gross monthly wages or salary
- A terminated employee remains liable to repay an outstanding car loan balance
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unfair termination of Kshs.1,744,209.00 (9 months' gross salary)
- 2.One month's gross salary for August 2015 of Kshs.193,801.00
- 3.Payment in lieu of notice of Kshs.112,401.00
- 4.Payment for 25 days' annual leave earned and not taken of Kshs.93,668.00
- 5.Service pay of Kshs.140,501.00 (one month's basic salary for every year of service)
- 6.Respondent to issue a certificate of service to the Claimant within 30 days of the judgment
- 7.Interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit till full payment
- 8.Costs of the claim awarded to the Claimant
- 9.Judgment entered for the Respondent on its counterclaim for Kshs.1,040,625.00 (car loan balance)
- 10.No order as to costs on the counterclaim
- 11.Amounts payable to the Claimant to be set off against the counterclaim award and statutory taxes
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim for unfair termination and employer's counterclaim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Shikuku v Childcare Worldwide Kenya and East Africa (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E019 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3373 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3373 (KLR)19 Dec 2023
- Shikuku v Childcare Worldwide Kenya and East Africa (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E019 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 3373 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3373 (KLR)19 Dec 2023
- Rubis Energy PLC [Formerly Kenolkobil Limited] v Muli (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E033 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3045 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3045 (KLR)24 Nov 2023
- Maina v Standard Group Limited (Cause 1922 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 2086 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2086 (KLR)13 Jul 2023followed
- Peterson Muriuki v Flame Tree Africa Limited [2021] KEELRC 784 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 784 (KLR)5 Oct 2021applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Otieno Rambo v Nation Media Group Limited [2021] KEELRC 899 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 184 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/899/eng@2021-09-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.