Kanyugo v Guru Nanak Ramgarhia Sikh Hospital (Cause E535 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 154 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a hospital's redundancy was unfair because it skipped the mandatory advance redundancy notice, awarding the employee Kshs. 750,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawfulness and fairness of termination on account of redundancy
Termination was unfair because the mandatory redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) & (b) was not issued to the Claimant and the Labour Officer; only a termination notice was issued, and the Labour Office notice came two days before termination.
The court held that the notice of intention to declare redundancy is a mandatory, separate notification distinct from the termination notice, designed to enable consultation on measures to avert or mitigate terminations. The Respondent issued only a termination notice and notified the Labour Office two days before termination, defeating the consultative purpose. Although selection criteria and payment of dues were proper, non-compliance with the notice requirements rendered the termination unfair under Section 45.
Remedies for unfair termination
Three months' salary (Kshs. 750,000) awarded in compensation, taking into account length of service and the Respondent's partial compliance with Section 40(1).
In exercising discretion under Section 49, the court considered the Claimant's short length of service (one year under a two-year contract) and the fact that the Respondent complied with some Section 40(1) conditions, including selection criteria and payment of dues, and therefore awarded three months' rather than the twelve months' sought.
Legal principles established
#- All conditions under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act must be satisfied for a redundancy to pass the lawfulness and fairness test
- The redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) & (b) is separate and distinct from the termination notice under Section 40(1)(f)
Court orders
#- 1.Award of three (3) months' salary (Kshs. 750,000) in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment
- 2.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.Claimant to have the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kanyugo v Guru Nanak Ramgarhia Sikh Hospital (Cause E535 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 154 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 25th July 2022 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/154/eng@2024-02-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.