Atandi v African Medical and Research Foundation (Amref) Flying Doctors (Cause E900 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 249 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification of the redundancy
The redundancy was substantively justified: the Claimant's position was abolished in a reorganization and he lacked the qualifications (KCSE only, no KCAA certification) for the new Flight Operations Officer role
The Respondent exhibited two organograms showing the Claimant's position was abolished and replaced. The job description required a Diploma in Flight Operations/Dispatch and a KCAA licence. The Claimant admitted in cross-examination that his highest qualification was KCSE and he held no KCAA certification, confirming he could not take up the new role.
Procedural fairness of the redundancy - notice and consultation
The Respondent failed to issue a notice of intention to declare redundancy and to hold pre-redundancy consultations, rendering the termination procedurally unfair under Section 40(1)
The letter of 9th July 2019 was a final notice declaring redundancy, not an intention to declare one. The meetings of 3rd August and 11th October 2018 concerned the Claimant's Saturday attendance, not an intended redundancy, and thus did not constitute consultations under Article 13, Convention No. 158 - Recommendation No. 166 of the ILO Convention.
Alleged discrimination on the ground of religion
The discrimination claim failed; the Respondent accommodated the Claimant by removing him from weekend rostering, and the redundancy came almost a year later for valid operational reasons
After the Claimant insisted he would not work Saturdays, the Respondent removed him from the weekend roster and engaged additional staff to cover, taking no disciplinary action. Termination followed in July 2019 on account of a justified redundancy, undercutting any inference of religious discrimination.
Quantum of relief for procedurally unfair redundancy
Nominal compensatory damages of two months' gross salary awarded because the reason for redundancy was valid
Since the substantive reason was valid and only the procedure was defective, the award was nominal: two months' gross salary (USD 1,856). Notice pay and severance had already been paid; the remainder-of-contract and discrimination-based claims failed.
Legal principles established
#- The notice contemplated under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act is a notice of intention to declare a redundancy, issued before the redundancy takes effect, and must open room for consultations
- A final notice declaring an employee redundant, issued after the decision has been made, does not comply with Section 40(1) and leaves no room for consultation
- An employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer under Section 5(7) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimant compensatory damages in the sum of USD 1,856, being equivalent to two (2) months of his gross salary
- 2.Interest at court rates on that award from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 3.The Claimant to have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; reliefs sought under the Employment Act and Articles 27 and 41 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Atandi v African Medical and Research Foundation (Amref) Flying Doctors (Cause E900 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 249 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E900 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/249/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.