Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Watchdog Limited (Civil Suit 1308 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a guard's redundancy as lawful but still ordered the employer to pay Kshs 90,988 in terminal benefits, notice pay, house allowance and service pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination by redundancy
The loss of five clients' contracts justified declaring 30 employees, including the claimant, redundant; the reason was valid.
Both CW1 and RW1 testified that the security company lost five contracts, and the claimant was a guard deployed to a client that terminated its contract. The court was satisfied this operational reason justified the redundancy declaration, satisfying the substantive fairness requirement.
Fairness of the redundancy procedure
One month's notice was given to the claimant and the labour office, terminal benefits were calculated, and the procedure met section 40 of the Employment Act.
The labour officer's report confirmed the respondent gave one month's notice of intended termination and calculated terminal benefits, which the claimant declined to receive because he disputed the amount. The court found the respondent complied with section 40 and the conciliation recommendations.
Entitlement to terminal benefits
The claimant was awarded notice pay of Kshs 10,912, house allowance of Kshs 19,641 and service pay of Kshs 60,435, totalling Kshs 90,988.
The court held it was bound to grant only the reliefs pleaded in the statement of claim. It found the claimant entitled to notice pay, house allowance and service pay as claimed, noting the respondent was ready and willing to pay but the claimant had refused to sign the discharge voucher.
Limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act
A prior ruling by Abuodha J held that time stopped running during conciliation under the Ministry of Labour, so the suit filed 3 years and 10 months after the cause of action was not time barred; the court proceeded to the merits since that ruling was not appealed.
The cause of action arose on October 1, 2013 and the suit was filed on July 11, 2017. Abuodha J's ruling of September 28, 2018 found the limitation period was interrupted by conciliation. The court acknowledged contrary Court of Appeal authority but held its hands were tied absent an appeal against the ruling.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who declares redundancy must have a valid reason and follow a fair procedure in terms of section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007.
- A court is only obliged to grant the reliefs a claimant has sought in the statement of claim.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs 90,988 (notice pay Kshs 10,912, house allowance Kshs 19,641, service pay Kshs 60,435).
- 2.The amount to attract interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full.
- 3.The respondent to pay the costs of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Watchdog Limited (Civil Suit 1308 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Suit No 1308 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/458/eng@2023-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.