Jared Odhiambo Adanga v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 904 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out an ex-employee's unfair termination claim because he signed a settlement discharge voucher, but refused to make him pay the employer's legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy was justified
Yes - the respondent proved the claimant's position of Assistant Division Manager was abolished in a restructuring; the court will not substitute its view for the employer's managerial prerogative
The employer restructured in 2019, merging four Assistant Division Manager positions in the Estate into three, with the claimant's division falling off. The claimant alleged his role still existed and was filled by another person but produced no evidence. RW1's clarification rebutted the allegation. The court held the employer is entitled to decide independently whether a position is necessary, a discretionary managerial prerogative, and found the reason for termination justified.
Whether the procedure followed was in accordance with section 40 of the Employment Act
No - the mandatory notices under section 40(1)(a) and (b) were not served on the labour officer or the claimant, rendering the termination procedurally unfair
RW1 admitted the labour officer was not served with notice of the intended redundancy and that the claimant received no other notice before the termination letter dated 26.7.2019. The memo of 5/7/2019 and the 18.7.2019 cascade concerned senior managers only and did not communicate the claimant's redundancy. The procedural failures denied the parties a chance to consult to prevent or mitigate the redundancy, breaching the mandatory procedure in section 40(1)(a) and (b).
Whether the reliefs sought are merited notwithstanding the procedural unfairness
No - the claimant voluntarily signed a discharge voucher waiving further claims and is estopped from pursuing the suit, though he received no costs relief for the employer's breach
The claimant admitted receiving all terminal dues and never alleged mistake, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence when signing the discharge voucher. Guided by Thomas De La Rue and Coastal Brothers v Kimathi Mithika, the court found the voucher was executed freely and knowingly and constituted a binding contract. The claimant waived further claims and was estopped from pressing more reliefs, so the suit was dismissed, but costs were denied to the employer for violating the law.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's decision on whether a position is necessary is a managerial prerogative not to be interfered with unless the employee shows the procedure followed was wrong or unfair
- Failure to serve notice of intended redundancy on the employee and the labour officer as required by section 40(1)(a) and (b) renders the termination procedurally unfair and entitles the employee to remedies under section 49
- A discharge voucher signed voluntarily with full knowledge of its import constitutes a binding contract that waives further claims and estops the employee from suing for more reliefs
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claimant's suit as prayed by the respondent
- 2.No costs awarded to the employer; each party to bear own costs in effect
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over a claim for unfair termination of employment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jared Odhiambo Adanga v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 904 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 17 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/904/eng@2022-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.