Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 550 (KLR)

Musau & 4 others v Board of Directors Habitat for Humanity Kenya & another (Cause 638 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 550 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
BOByram Ongaya
732 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld Habitat for Humanity Kenya's redundancy, ruling the employer followed the required legal procedure, so the ex-employees got nothing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, employed by the 1st respondent and sometimes seconded to the 2nd respondent, challenged their termination on account of redundancy effected on 30.09.2019. They sought declarations that the redundancy was unfair, irregular and unprocedural for non-compliance with section 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Employment Act and the respondent's Human Resource Manual, an order of reinstatement, and in the alternative general damages including 12 months' salaries, service pay for years served, salaries for the remaining contract years and unpaid leave allowances, plus costs. The respondents, through Coulson Harney LLP, sought dismissal of the suit with costs. The court found the 1st respondent was the employer and that the relationship was terminated by redundancy. It held that the redundancy complied with section 40: notification letters issued on 29.07.2019, the County Labour Officer was notified at Nairobi and Kisii, termination letters issued on 29.08.2019 to take effect on 30.09.2019, and claimants attended counselling and consultation meetings. As each claimant held a sole position, selection criteria based on seniority and suitability did not arise, and discrepancies in the notification dates were explained in writing as typographical. The redundancy was substantially in accordance with the law and not unfair in substance or procedure. The claimants had been paid their terminal and redundancy dues, and the delay in payment was explained by their filing suit before clearing with the employer. The court found none of the reliefs justified and dismissed the suit, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act in a redundancy

Holding

The redundancy complied with section 40(1)(b) and (c) - notification to employees and the area labour officer - and was not unfair in substance or procedure

Reasoning

The court found notification letters were issued on 29.07.2019, termination letters on 29.08.2019 with effect from 30.09.2019, and the County Labour Officer received the notification letter at Nairobi and Kisii. Claimants attended counselling sessions and consultation committee meetings. Since each claimant held a sole position, selection criteria did not arise. Date discrepancies were explained as typographical. The redundancy was therefore substantially lawful and fair.

p. 2
02

Entitlement to reinstatement or damages

Holding

No relief was justified because the termination was lawful and terminal and redundancy dues had been paid

Reasoning

The claimants confirmed receipt of terminal and redundancy dues. The delay in payment was explained by the claimants filing suit before clearing with the employer, after which they were paid. Having failed to establish a breach of section 40 or of the Human Resource Manual, the claimants were not entitled to reinstatement or the alternative damages claimed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee seconded to another entity remains the employee of the original employer, which falls within the definition of employer under the Employment Act
  • Where each employee holds a sole position, selection criteria based on seniority and suitability for retention do not arise in a redundancy
  • Typographical discrepancies in dates of redundancy notification letters, if explained in writing to the employees, do not vitiate a redundancy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the respondent for dismissal of the suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment and redundancy dispute)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Musau & 4 others v Board of Directors Habitat for Humanity Kenya & another (Cause 638 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 550 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/550/eng@2025-02-27

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