Muthuri & 3 others v Kibet & 3 others (All sued in their Capacities as the officials of Automobile Association of Kenya) (Cause E029 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 130 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an employer's redundancy because it followed every legal step — proof that correct procedure and paper trails win employment cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for the redundancy
The respondent proved a genuine redundancy situation arising from organisational review and job evaluation approved by the Governing Council in 2018
The respondent carried out an organisational review and job evaluation through consultants, producing a new structure approved by the Governing Council. A skills audit showed the 1st-3rd claimants lacked the skills required for redefined roles, and attempts at alternative placement failed. This established a valid reason based on operational requirements under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 40 of the Employment Act
The respondent complied with Section 40 by notifying staff, the union and the labour officer over a month in advance, applying selection criteria based on superfluous roles and skills, consulting, and paying notice pay and 22 days' severance per completed year
Notices dated 12th October 2018 were served on all staff, the union's Secretary General and the area Labour Officer, setting out reasons, terminal dues and selection criteria. Individual consultations, training and payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice and 22 days' severance per completed year of service were proved, exceeding the statutory minimum of 15 days.
Whether the 4th claimant was made redundant
No - he exited on normal retirement at age 60 on 31st July 2018, before the redundancy notices of 12th October 2018, and produced no evidence to the contrary
The respondent produced a retirement notice letter dated 2nd July 2018 effective 31st July 2018 and a clearance form. The 4th claimant adduced no evidence to substantiate the allegation that he was laid off with the other claimants, so his claim failed on the evidence.
Whether the claimants proved entitlement to further dues
No - the claimants accepted and received their terminal dues and adduced no evidence (e.g. bank statements) that payments were not made or further dues were owing
The claimants did not prove non-payment of terminal dues by bank statements or otherwise. The 2nd claimant's protest on accrued leave days was not supported by evidence, so the court could not find he was entitled to the 174 leave days he claimed.
Legal principles established
#- Managerial prerogative to restructure and make positions (not employees) redundant is protected so long as employees' rights are not sacrificed
- An employer bears the burden under Sections 43 and 47(5) of the Employment Act to prove a valid reason and fair procedure for redundancy
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claims under Sections 40, 41, 43, 45 and 49 and Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muthuri & 3 others v Kibet & 3 others (All sued in their Capacities as the officials of Automobile Association of Kenya) (Cause E029 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 130 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/130/eng@2023-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.