Omondi v Medisel (Kenya) Limited & another (Cause E038 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1582 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employee's redundancy was unfair because the employer couldn't prove the job actually disappeared or followed proper procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for the redundancy
The Respondents failed to prove substantive justification because there was no evidence that the Tele Sales Manager position was abolished
Although financial losses and restructuring were asserted, the Respondents led no evidence that the Claimant's position ceased to exist. Following Kenya Airways v Aviation & Allied Workers Union, an employer must show the termination is attributable to the redundancy, i.e. services rendered superfluous or abolition of office. Financial strain alone does not satisfy the statutory definition of redundancy under Section 2 of the Employment Act.
Procedural compliance with Section 40(1)(a) and (b) - notice to labour officer
The notice to the County Labour Officer was defective as it did not state the extent of the redundancy or identify the Claimant's position
The Notice of 28th December 2021 merely stated that certain positions would be declared redundant, without indicating the number of employees affected or naming the Claimant's position among those affected. This fell short of substantial compliance with Section 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act, which requires disclosure of the reasons for and extent of the intended redundancy.
Compliance with the selection criteria under Section 40(1)(c)
The Respondents failed to prove objective application of the LIFO and skills/seniority/reliability criteria
Despite RW1's assertion that the LIFO principle and criteria of skills, seniority and reliability were used, no evidence such as a score sheet demonstrated how the criteria were applied to select the Claimant. The assertions also conflicted with the Respondents' submissions that the entire position was abolished, leaving doubt as to whether selection was objective.
Pre-redundancy consultations
The Respondents failed to initiate the consultations contemplated in the notice
The Respondents claimed the Claimant was absent and unreachable, but did not adduce evidence of attempts to reach her, nor did they issue a notice requiring her to explain her absence. Her evidence that her work emails were disabled was not controverted. The court concluded the Respondents failed to initiate pre-redundancy consultations as decreed under the ILO Convention No. 158 framework.
Entitlement to reliefs
Compensatory damages of three months' salary, payment for 2.75 accrued leave days and unpaid airtime facilitation for 11 months were awarded
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the court awarded three months' salary as compensation, calibrated to the short length of service. Payment for the proved leave balance of 2.75 days was awarded since there was no evidence of payment, and unpaid airtime facilitation of Kshs. 1,500 per month for 11 months was awarded based on the top-up forms.
Legal principles established
#- Termination on account of redundancy must be both substantially justified and procedurally fair
- The employer bears the burden of proving that the terminated position was actually abolished and rendered superfluous
- Notice to the labour officer under Section 40(1)(b) must state the extent of the redundancy, including the positions and number of employees affected
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Compensatory damages of Kshs. 265,500.00 for unfair termination (three months' salary)
- 3.Unpaid overtime for 11 months in the sum of Kshs. 16,500.00
- 4.Unpaid leave (2.75 days) in the sum of Kshs. 8,112.50
- 5.Total award of Kshs. 290,112.50
- 6.Interest on the total award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 7.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied; not expressly cited)
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.
- Export Consolidated Services Kenya Limited v Gitau (Appeal E162 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3689 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 3689 (KLR)18 Dec 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi v Medisel (Kenya) Limited & another (Cause E038 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1582 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E038 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1582/eng@2024-06-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.