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 judgment· [2025] KEELRC 775 (KLR)

Mijengo Investment Limited v Kemunto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 775 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 March 2025
AMANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE
2,950 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that an employer who skips mandatory redundancy notice steps must pay full compensation, even on appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Mwaure, J) against the judgment of Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. E.S. Soita, who had found that the Respondent, a general worker, was unfairly terminated on account of redundancy by the Appellant employer. The Appellant raised grounds including that the magistrate erred in finding the redundancy substantively unfair, failed to evaluate evidence, and awarded excessive terminal dues including underpayment and severance pay. The Appellant argued the Respondent participated in consultative meetings, consented to termination, and that statutory notices were issued, citing Covid-19 and the government ban on logging. The Respondent countered that no minutes or notices of redundancy existed, notices were issued less than a month before termination, there was no mutual consent, and the consent issue was a new afterthought. The court, exercising its first appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence, applied section 40 of the Employment Act as outlined in Thomas De La Rue and followed the Court of Appeal in Freight In Time Limited v Rosebell Wambui Munene. It found no minutes of meetings, only one day's notice to the labour office instead of one month, no names of employees considered for redundancy, and no selection criteria. It agreed with the trial court that the termination was unfair and that there was insufficient evidence of mutual consent. The appeal was dismissed, the trial court's awards upheld, and costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's termination on account of redundancy was fair and procedural

Holding

The termination was substantively and procedurally unfair as the Appellant failed to comply with section 40 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Appellant did not avail minutes of meetings preparing the Respondent for redundancy, gave the labour office only one day's notice instead of one month, did not name the employees considered for termination, and provided no selection criteria. The court applied section 40 of the Employment Act and followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Freight In Time Limited v Rosebell Wambui Munene, holding the redundancy unlawful for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

p. 6
02

Whether the Respondent mutually consented to the termination of her employment

Holding

There was no sufficient evidence of mutual agreement to terminate

Reasoning

The court found no evidence supporting the Appellant's claim of a mutual consent to terminate the Respondent's employment, agreeing with the trial court's rejection of that assertion. The Appellant did not demonstrate the existence of a binding consent, and the Respondent contended the issue was a new afterthought not raised in the trial court.

p. 6
03

Whether the trial court's award of terminal dues ought to be disturbed

Holding

The awards were properly made and are upheld

Reasoning

The court found that the trial magistrate diligently considered the reliefs awarded, including compensation, underpayment, severance pay and notice pay, and declined to interfere with them on appeal.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must strictly comply with all conditions in section 40 of the Employment Act before declaring an employee redundant; failure renders the termination unfair
  • On a first appeal, the court has a duty to re-examine and evaluate all the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The awards of the trial court are upheld
  3. 3.Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from subordinate courts in employment matters

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mijengo Investment Limited v Kemunto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 775 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/775/eng@2025-03-07

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