Nzioki v Polytanks & Containers Kenya Limited (Cause E793 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1510 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employer's Covid-19 redundancy was fake and unfair, awarding the HR Manager 8 months' salary because the employer skipped required legal steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act
Procedure was fundamentally flawed; no proper notices issued to the Claimant or the Labour Office and no consultation occurred
The redundancy notice doubled as an immediate termination letter, issued the same day on instructions from the Head of Group HR in India. No consultation on reasons, selection criteria or alternatives took place, and the Labour Office notice was cosmetic, presenting a fait accompli rather than opening tripartite consultation. Notice pay redressed only the termination notice default, not the absence of notices of intended redundancy.
Validity of the redundancy reason
No valid redundancy was established; the purported financial downturn was unsupported and the business was in fact thriving during Covid-19
The Respondent exhibited no financial statements or documents to support its claim of scarce raw materials and low business. As a water tank manufacturer during Covid-19, it logically reaped windfall profits from government directives mandating handwashing facilities. The HR department remained, with the Claimant's assistant assuming her role, and only 3 of about 140 employees were affected, indicating a colourable exercise.
Remedies for unfair termination
Claimant granted 8 months' gross salary as compensation; claims for already-paid benefits and anticipatory salary of Kshs 28 million declined
The Claimant served 2 years and 10 months, was 16 years from retirement, and did not contribute to the termination, warranting 8 months' salary compensation. Claims for September salary, notice, severance and leave lacked merit as they were paid. The Kshs 28 million anticipatory salary claim was an unjust-enrichment cash-grab, disproportionate and rejected; compensation under the Act already incorporates the remainder of the contract period.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy procedure must comply strictly with Section 40 of the Employment Act, including genuine notices and consultation with the employee and the Labour Office
- An employer alleging redundancy due to financial downturn must establish it through financial statements or documentary evidence
- Employment remedies must remain within reasonable compensation and not become a conduit for unjust enrichment
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant compensation equivalent of 8 months' salary for unfair termination, at Kshs 1,188,000.
- 3.Certificate of Service to issue.
- 4.Costs to the Claimant.
- 5.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Section 40 redundancy provisions applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Macharia v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya) Mater Misericordiae Hospital (Cause 650 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1454 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1454 (KLR)16 May 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nzioki v Polytanks & Containers Kenya Limited (Cause E793 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1510/eng@2024-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.