Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedELRC Cause (Mombasa) filed 11th July 2018· [2022] KEELRC 601 (KLR)

Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Kenya Methodist University [2022] KEELRC 601 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 March 2022
JRJames Rika
702 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled the University unfairly made 15 staff redundant and must pay them 6 months' salary plus statutory dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers filed this Claim on 11th July 2018 on behalf of 15 of its members, employees of the Respondent University whose contracts were terminated on account of redundancy on 22nd May 2017. The Union pleaded that the redundancy was unfair and sought salary arrears, compensation, notice and severance. It relied on the Court's judgment of 28th July 2017 in Consolidated Causes 211, 221 and 222 of 2017, in which 60 of the Grievants' compatriots, affected by the same redundancy, were awarded compensation and redundancy dues. The Respondent conceded the employment and redundancy but contended that the earlier Claims were materially different because it had already taken steps towards settling the present Grievants' terminal dues. The parties agreed on 21st October 2021 that the Claim be determined under Rule 21 of the Court's Procedure Rules, 2016. The Court found that the present Claim and the Consolidated Claims were not materially different - the same redundancy, the same employer and the same group of employees were involved - and that there was no reason why the Respondent had not settled the Claim guided by the earlier judgment. The Court adopted the 28th July 2017 judgment as the judgment in the present Claim, with necessary adjustments. It declared the terminations unfair and ordered the Respondent to pay each Grievant 6 months' gross salary as at 31st July 2017 as compensation, redundancy dues under Section 40 of the Employment Act less any dues already received, and costs to the Claimant. Judgment was delivered electronically at Mombasa on 3rd March 2022 by James Rika, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy of the 15 Grievants was unfair

Holding

The termination on account of redundancy was unfair; the Court adopted its prior judgment of 28th July 2017 in the Consolidated Claims, which found non-compliance with Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act, to the present Grievants who were part of the same redundancy exercise.

Reasoning

The present Claim was indistinguishable from the Consolidated Claims decided on 28th July 2017: the same employer carried out the same redundancy affecting the same group of employees. The Respondent did not explain why it failed to settle the present Grievants' dues guided by that judgment. The Court therefore adopted the prior judgment, with necessary adjustments, declaring the terminations unfair and awarding the same reliefs.

p. 2
02

Appropriate remedies for the unfair redundancy

Holding

Each Grievant to receive 6 months' gross salary as at 31st July 2017 as compensation for unfair termination, plus redundancy dues under Section 40 of the Employment Act, less any dues already received.

Reasoning

The remedies mirror those granted to the 60 compatriots in the Consolidated Claims: compensation equivalent to 6 months' gross salary and statutory redundancy dues under Section 40 of the Employment Act 2007. A deduction is made for any dues the Grievants have already received, reflecting the Respondent's assertion that it had taken steps towards settling their terminal dues.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a prior judgment of the same Court has determined an identical redundancy involving the same employer and group of employees, the Court may adopt that judgment as the judgment in a subsequent claim by similarly placed employees.
  • An employer whose redundancy has been declared unfair in prior proceedings should settle claims of other employees affected by the same redundancy guided by that judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that termination of the Grievants' employment was unfair
  2. 2.Respondent to pay each Grievant 6 months' gross salary as at 31st July 2017 in compensation for unfair termination
  3. 3.Respondent to pay each Grievant redundancy dues as per Section 40 of the Employment Act, less any dues received by the Grievants
  4. 4.Costs to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act 2007Section 40 [1] [c]
  • Employment Act 2007Section 40
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 21
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act 2007; ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016, Rule 21)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Kenya Methodist University [2022] KEELRC 601 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELRC Cause (Mombasa) filed 11th July 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/601/eng@2022-03-03

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