Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)

Kenya Concrete, Structural, Cereamic Tiles, Woodplys and Interior Design Workers Union v Mara Tea Limited (Cause E902 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 June 2024
JRJames Rika
801 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer's Covid-19 redundancies were ruled unfair, and affected workers won severance, notice pay, and compensation worth months of salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union filed a Statement of Claim on 2nd December 2022 on behalf of seven former employees (Grievants) of the Respondent whose contracts were terminated on grounds of financial constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Claimant alleged the termination was unfair, unlawful and in violation of the Grievants' right to fair labour practices, and sought declarations, reinstatement, adoption of a Conciliator's recommendations, or alternatively terminal dues, plus costs and interest. The Respondent did not enter appearance or file a response, and the claim proceeded unopposed, with evidence from Fred Kengere, one of the Grievants. The dispute had earlier been conciliated at the Narok County Labour Office, where the Conciliator found a flawed redundancy process and recommended severance, repayment of Kshs. 5,600 illegally deducted from Fred Kengere, and compensation of three months' salary. The Respondent failed to comply, prompting this suit. The court upheld the Conciliator's findings with adjustments: it rejected the recommendation reclassifying drivers as non-management staff because the dispute concerned individual unfair terminations, not a collective dispute, and corrected the headcount to seven Grievants. Reinstatement was also refused as inconsistent with the Conciliator's report. The court declared the redundancy termination unfair and unlawful and ordered severance at 15 days' salary per completed year of service, one month's pay in lieu of notice, three months' gross salary compensation, certificates of service, costs to the Claimant, and interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full. Judgment was delivered by James Rika, Judge, on 14th June 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Fairness of redundancy termination

Holding

Termination by redundancy was unfair and unlawful; grievants entitled to severance, notice pay and compensation.

Reasoning

The Respondent ignored both the conciliation process and the court proceedings. The Conciliator found the redundancy flawed and the Grievants denied statutory benefits. With no response filed, the court accepted the Claimant's uncontroverted evidence and adopted the conciliator's findings with adjustments to align relief with the actual dispute and the number of Grievants.

p. 3
02

Scope of the Conciliator's recommendations

Holding

Only recommendations connected to the actual dispute (unfair termination of 7 specified employees) were adopted; the collective reclassification of drivers was rejected.

Reasoning

The court found the first recommendation misconceived because the dispute concerned individual unfair terminations, not a collective labour dispute over drivers' terms. It also corrected the headcount discrepancy: 6 employees were referenced in the memorandum plus Fred Kengere conciliated separately, totalling 7 Grievants, not 5 as stated in the report.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a respondent does not respond to a claim, the court may act on the uncontroverted claimant's evidence, adopting or adjusting the conciliator's recommendations as justice requires.
  • Compensation of three months' gross salary is appropriate for unfair redundancy termination where the conciliator so recommended.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that termination on account of redundancy was unfair and unlawful
  2. 2.Respondent to pay each Grievant severance at 15 days' salary for each complete year of service based on last salary earned
  3. 3.Each Grievant to be paid 1-month salary in lieu of notice
  4. 4.Each Grievant to be paid equivalent of 3 months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination
  5. 5.Certificates of Service to issue
  6. 6.Costs to the Claimant
  7. 7.Interest at court rate from date of Judgment until payment in full
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act; dispute referred after conciliation at the Ministry of Labour

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Cereamic Tiles, Woodplys and Interior Design Workers Union v Mara Tea Limited (Cause E902 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1442/eng@2024-06-14

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