Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. (lead file; consolidated with Kisumu Cause No. 248 of 2018 and Kisumu Cause No. 249 of 2018)· [2021] KEELRC 2084 (KLR)

Frankline Okome Ometty v Transmara Sugar Co Limited [2021] KEELRC 2084 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 February 2021
RSRadido Stephen
842 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Transmara Sugar Co. Ltd issued notices of termination on account of redundancy to three employees (Frankline Okome Ometty, Obedy Obare Machogu and Maurice Juma Ogama) on 18 December 2017, following a face-to-face meeting on 11 December 2017, with effect from 25 January 2018. The three claimants filed separate suits alleging unfair termination on account of redundancy, which were consolidated with the lead file, in which evidence was recorded. The claimants asserted that the letters of 18 December 2017 did not constitute notices under section 40(1) of the Employment Act, 2007, that no selection criteria were applied, and that the real reason for the redundancy was to replace them with preferred expatriates. The respondent's Human Resources Manager testified that the redundancy arose from the decentralisation of operations necessitating reorganisation of the transport and agriculture departments, and produced an organogram of the new structure; she denied replacement hiring. The Court held that the notices complied with section 40(1), giving slightly more than 30 days' notice to the claimants and the local Labour Officer. On substantive fairness, the Court found the reasons valid and fair, noting the claimants never named the alleged expatriate and admitted the decline of the sugar sector, and that it is not the Court's role to direct an employer's business. The consolidated Causes were dismissed with no order on costs, judgment delivered on 24 February 2021 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of redundancy under section 40(1) of the Employment Act

Holding

The notices met the statutory threshold, giving slightly more than 30 days' notice to the Claimants and the local Labour Officer

Reasoning

Section 40(1) requires 30 days' written notice to the employee or union and the local Labour Officer. The Respondent issued written notices to the Claimants on 18 December 2017 with effect from 25 January 2018 and served the Labour Officer the same day. The notices were preceded by a face-to-face meeting on 11 December 2017. The Court was satisfied the threshold was met.

p. 2
02

Valid and fair reasons for the redundancy

Holding

The reorganisation of the transport and agriculture departments following decentralisation constituted valid and fair reasons; the claim of replacement by expatriates was unsupported

Reasoning

The reason for redundancy (decentralisation and reorganisation of the transport and agriculture departments) was not controverted. The Claimants alleged replacement by expatriates but never named the alleged expatriate, and admitted the sugar sector had declined. The Respondent produced an organogram showing new structures. The Court declined to second-guess business judgment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • It is not the role of the Court to direct an employer on how to run its business; the Court only examines whether reasons for redundancy were valid and fair and whether procedure was followed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The consolidated Causes are dismissed
  2. 2.No order on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 40(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination of employment claims (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Frankline Okome Ometty v Transmara Sugar Co Limited [2021] KEELRC 2084 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. (lead file; consolidated with Kisumu Cause No. 248 of 2018 and Kisumu Cause No. 249 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2084/eng@2021-02-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.