Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedStatement of Claim filed 26th May 2020 (number not stated in judgment)· [2024] KEELRC 688 (KLR)

Wamalwa v Sagemcom Kenya Limited (Cause 210 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 688 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 March 2024
JRJames Rika
2,432 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee who accepted a redundancy package and stayed silent for three years lost his unfair termination claim against Sagemcom Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as Projects Manager on 10th May 2010, sued after his contract was terminated on grounds of redundancy by letter dated 28th July 2017, following the Respondent's loss of a Safaricom contract. He sought a declaration that the redundancy was unfair and unlawful, damages for discrimination, one month's notice pay, service pay for 7 years, and 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination. The Respondent maintained that due process was followed, notices were issued including to the Labour Office, the Claimant was consulted through his manager Watson Kambo, severance at 15 days' salary per completed year was paid, and that the Claimant had accepted the termination by e-mail. A preliminary objection on the identity of the employer (Sagem Communications Limited versus Sagemcom Kenya Limited) had been resolved in a Ruling of 3rd December 2020, the court finding both formed part of the same business. The court heard the Claimant, Kambo, and Managing Director Gregoire Durival. It found the Claimant's e-mail of 31st July 2017 accepted both the procedure and reasons for redundancy, thanked the Respondent and offered future service, showing the separation was amicable and consensual. The Claimant collected his redundancy cheque and filed suit only three years later, in afterthought. The Claim was declined with no order on costs, dated 28th March 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity and fairness of redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act

Holding

Though procedural objections were raised, the Claimant accepted the procedure and reasons for redundancy in writing, amounting to consensus/acquiescence

Reasoning

The Claimant's e-mail of 31st July 2017 acknowledged the termination letter, confirmed the process was well explained, thanked the Respondent, and offered future service. The court treated this as acceptance of both procedure and reason. He collected his redundancy cheque and stayed silent for nearly three years, indicating the separation was amicable and consensual rather than contested.

p. 5
02

Whether the delay in filing the claim undermined the claim

Holding

The claim filed three years after acceptance was an afterthought and did not merit remedies

Reasoning

The Claimant collected his redundancy cheque a month after termination and only filed suit on 26th May 2020, almost three years later. The court regarded the late claim, and the recruitment of his former manager as a witness who left the Respondent the same year, as afterthought incapable of supporting additional benefits.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who accepts termination and redundancy dues by agreement cannot later claim the redundancy was unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
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, "Wamalwa v Sagemcom Kenya Limited (Cause 210 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 688 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Statement of Claim filed 26th May 2020 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/688/eng@2024-03-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.