Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 7th October 2020, filed 28th October 2020· [2022] KEELRC 405 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Mohan Engineering Works Limited [2022] KEELRC 405 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 March 2022
1,698 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer who told workers to 'go home and wait' when business collapsed was held to have made them redundant unfairly, owing notice pay and severance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union brought this claim on behalf of two former employees of the Respondent, Joshua Oloo (a mechanic employed from October 2008) and Kevin Oduor (a spray painter engaged in August 2014), seeking salary arrears, pay in lieu of notice, house allowances and service pay. The Claimant's case was that the Respondent defaulted on rent, the Landlord locked the premises, and in October 2018 the grievants were told not to report to duty until the Respondent acquired alternative premises. Conciliation having failed, a certificate of unresolved issue issued. The Respondent did not participate in the hearing; she had explained that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal allowed the Landlord to lock the premises and sell her equipment, forcing closure, and that she had filed for insolvency in the High Court at Kisumu. The court framed two issues: whether the grievants were terminated and, if so, whether the termination was fair; and whether remedies were due. It held the separation amounted to a declaration of redundancy rather than an ordinary termination, since the employees left at the employer's initiative and through no fault of their own. None of the Section 40 Employment Act conditions for redundancy were attempted; no notice was given to the grievants or the union, making the termination unfair. Judgment was entered for the Claimant: one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 21,317 for Oloo; Kshs. 10,000 for Oduor) and severance pay (Kshs. 212,940 for Oloo; Kshs. 53,760 for Oduor). The salary arrears claim was dismissed for lack of proof, and house allowances were not awarded. Half the costs of the suit were awarded to the Claimant because the Respondent did not participate in the hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the grievants' separation from employment was a termination or a redundancy

Holding

The manner of separation pointed to redundancy rather than an ordinary termination, as employees were terminated at the employer's initiative and through no fault of their own

Reasoning

The witness testified that the Respondent's business premises were locked by the Landlord for non-payment of rent, leading to closure of the factory, and employees were told not to report on duty. The court reasoned that this depicted an employer facing financial difficulties unable to sustain the business, fitting the statutory definition of redundancy under the Employment Act.

p. 2
02

Whether the redundancy was procedurally fair

Holding

The termination was unfair because none of the steps under Section 40 of the Employment Act were attempted; no notice was given to the grievants or their union

Reasoning

Section 40 requires notification of the union and labour officer not less than a month before redundancy, payment of leave, one month's notice or wages in lieu, and severance pay at not less than fifteen days' pay per completed year of service. The Respondent, having foreseen financial challenges, ought to have properly declared redundancies rather than waiting for events to unfold.

p. 3
03

Entitlement to remedies

Holding

Grievants awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice and severance pay; salary arrears claim dismissed for lack of proof

Reasoning

Section 40 entitles employees declared redundant to one month's salary in lieu of notice and severance pay. The salary arrears claim failed because the Claimant did not particularise the months owed. Severance pay was computed and awarded for each grievant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employer's employees are locked out and told to go home and wait, the separation amounts to a declaration of redundancy, requiring compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act
  • Redundancy is a legitimate ground for terminating employment provided there is a valid reason based on operational requirements and a fair procedure is followed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of one-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 21,317/- for Joshua Oloo, and Kshs. 10,000 for Kevin Oduor
  2. 2.Severance pay at Kshs. 212,940 for Joshua Oloo and Kshs. 53,760/- for Kevin Oduor
  3. 3.Half the costs of the suit as the Respondent did not participate in the hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 40
  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 35
  • Employment ActSection 40 (definition of redundancy)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference under the Employment Act following a trade dispute and certificate of unresolved issue issued after conciliation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Mohan Engineering Works Limited [2022] KEELRC 405 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Memorandum of Claim dated 7th October 2020, filed 28th October 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/405/eng@2022-03-24

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