Sheila Kiplangat v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 1030 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a tea company's redundancy unfair for skipping legal notice steps, but a signed settlement voucher blocked the employee's compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy was justified
Yes - the respondent proved by evidence that the position of Assistant Field Manager, Kericho, was abolished in the new organizational structure.
The claimant alleged her former position still existed and was occupied by another person but tendered no evidence to support that allegation. The employer's decision on the necessity of a position is a managerial prerogative; it cannot be interfered with absent proof that the procedure followed was wrong or unfair. The respondent therefore discharged the evidential burden under section 47(5).
Whether the procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act was followed
No - the mandatory notice of intended redundancy was neither served on the labour officer nor on the claimant at least one month before the redundancy.
RW1 admitted the labour officer was never served with the mandatory notice. The only prior communication, the memo of 5/7/2019, concerned senior managers at Level 2 only. The claimant first received a termination notice on 26/7/2019, effective 31/8/2019, without prior consultation. This breached the mandatory procedure in section 40(1)(a) and (b) and denied the parties a chance to consult.
Whether the signed discharge voucher bars the claimant's claim
Yes - the discharge voucher was signed voluntarily with full knowledge and constitutes a binding contract, waiving further claims and estopping the claimant.
Guided by the Court of Appeal in Thomas De La Rue and Coastal Brothers, the court examined whether the voucher was freely and willingly executed. The claimant admitted signing it and never alleged mistake, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence. In the absence of vitiating factors, the voucher was a binding contract and the claimant was estopped from pressing further reliefs.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of justifying the reason for termination of an employee's employment lies with the employer under section 47(5) of the Employment Act.
- The decision to abolish a position is a managerial prerogative not to be interfered with unless the procedure followed was wrong or unfair.
- Procedural failure under section 40(1)(a) and (b) renders a redundancy unfair but not null and void; it entitles the claimant to section 49 remedies.
- A discharge voucher per se does not absolve an employer from statutory obligation; the court must determine whether it was freely and willingly executed.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination was unfair, discriminatory and unlawful
- 2.Dismissal of the claimant's suit as prayed by the respondent
- 3.No costs awarded to the employer for violating the law in effecting the termination
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, Cap 226 (sections 40, 47(5) and 49) invoked in a first-instance unfair termination claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kimaru & 6 others v Nairobi Securities Exchange PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 686 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 1039 (KLR)27 Apr 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sheila Kiplangat v Unliver Tea Kenya Limited [2022] KEELRC 1030 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 16 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1030/eng@2022-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.