Kithunzi v Intra Africa Assurance Company Limited (Cause 869 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 508 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a redundancy where the employer followed the proper notice process, and the employee raised no timely objection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with section 40 redundancy procedure
The respondent substantially complied with the requirements of 30 days' notices to the employee and labour officer, and the notices sufficiently explained the reasons and extent of the termination.
The claimant received and signed the redundancy notice dated 25.04.2018 which invited 30-day consultations; notice was given to the Cabinet Secretary for Labour on the same date and acknowledged by the Labour Commissioner on 07.05.2018. The reasons (staff rationalisation under the 2017–2021 strategic plan) were stated. The claimant signed the termination letter and raised no serious objections or alternative views in the invited consultations, so was bound by the terms.
Genuineness and fairness of the redundancy reasons
The redundancy was genuine in terms of section 43 and valid and fair under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The claimant confirmed several other employees left employment around the same season and offered no basis for asserting they left voluntarily. He never questioned the reasons by grievance or objection after receiving the elaborate notice. On a balance of probability, no material existed to doubt the fairness and validity of the reasons.
Discrimination based on ethnic or tribal origin
The claimant failed to establish discrimination as alleged.
The claimant alleged his replacement was from a dominant ethnicity and that affected employees were disproportionately chosen, but other than his pleaded word he had no written or other evidence. He admitted he had not reported or expressed such a grievance while in employment or after receiving the redundancy notice. He did not plead particulars of the ethnicity of himself or the alleged dominant employees, and provided no evidence.
Remedies for alleged unexpired tenure of 9 years
The claims for loss of earnings and benefits over 9 years failed as the claimant established no basis for them.
The claimant was terminated on grounds of redundancy and offered no good cause attributable to the respondent barring him from gainful engagement after termination. His own evidence showed that as at hearing (02.11.2023) he rendered insurance services, confirming he had gainfully moved on. Having failed to establish unfair termination, discrimination or breach of rights, no remedies were due.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who signs a termination letter inviting acceptance of its terms is bound as accepting those terms, especially absent serious objections through invited consultations.
- Allegations of ethnic discrimination in redundancy selection must be supported by pleaded particulars and evidence; mere assertion is insufficient.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the claimant for dismissal of the suit with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims (Employment Act, 2007; Article 27 and 23(3) of the Constitution invoked in the pleadings)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kithunzi v Intra Africa Assurance Company Limited (Cause 869 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 508 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/508/eng@2024-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.