Olang & 49 others v Airtel Networks (k) Limited (Cause 335, 831, 823, 833, 834, 835, 836, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554 & 1555 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELRC 10 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Airtel's Kenyan redundancy was ruled unlawful because it skipped mandatory notices under Section 40, with affected managers awarded three months' salary plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act on redundancy procedure
The Respondent failed to notify the Ministry of Labour and did not issue individual notices to the Claimants, rendering the redundancy unlawful
The court found it evident the Respondent never informed the Ministry of Labour, as confirmed by the County Labour Officer's correspondence produced in evidence and confirmed by the Respondent. The excuse that employees held sensitive information was unsupported by evidence, undefined, and covered by confidentiality clauses in the employment contracts. Non-compliance with the mandatory notices under Section 40 rendered the redundancy declaration illegal.
Whether payment in lieu of notice can cure failure to give redundancy notice
No - statutory redundancy notice is mandatory and cannot be substituted by monetary payment
The Respondent admitted it did not issue individual notices to the Claimants, claiming employees held sensitive information. The court rejected this as there was no evidence of what sensitive information was held, no suggestion notice would affect the business, and confidentiality was already covered by clause 6 of the contracts. The notices are mandatory, not mechanical.
Legal principles established
#- The notices envisaged under Section 40 of the Employment Act are mandatory and cannot be compensated monetarily in lieu
Court orders
#- 1.Each of the Claimants is entitled to recover three month's salary as compensation for the unfair and unlawful termination
- 2.Interest at Court rates on the compensation sums from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.Costs of the consolidated suit to the Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; Article 41 fair labour practices)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olang & 49 others v Airtel Networks (k) Limited (Cause 335, 831, 823, 833, 834, 835, 836, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554 & 1555 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELRC 10 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Consolidated ELRC Causes (instituted 2016) against Airtel Networks Kenya Limited. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/10/eng@2022-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.