Munyefu v Care International Somalia & another (Cause 324 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1128 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an NGO's redundancy was unlawful for skipping mandatory steps, awarding the employee 10 months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy was procedurally lawful under section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007
The redundancy was unprocedural and defective for non-compliance with section 40, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful.
The court accepted the claimant's submission that section 40 conditions are mandatory, relying on Henry Juma Obudho v David Engineering Limited and Mulyanga v Zitron Limited. It found the claimant established non-compliance: no personal notice, no consultations, and a defective selection process. It accepted that the process was actuated by malice and bad faith for ulterior motive, as demonstrated by the linkage of the claimant's and Mr Oluoch's separations.
Whether the Respondents violated the claimant's constitutional rights under Articles 27, 41 and 47
The claim of discrimination under Article 27 failed; the court held the discrimination claim duplicitous of the unfair redundancy claim.
The claimant alleged discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity, and unfair treatment in selection. The Respondents, relying on Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd, submitted the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof. The court agreed that discrimination was not proven on a balance of probabilities and that a multiplicity of claims on the same wrong was inappropriate, the claim being primarily one for unfair redundancy.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
Having established unfair, unprocedural and unlawful redundancy, the claimant was entitled to relief; a declaration was issued and 10 months' salary awarded as compensation.
The court found the claimant had won on the case of unfair redundancy and became entitled to the relief sought. It issued a declaration of wrongful, unfair and unlawful termination, awarded ten months' salary (Kshs.472,500 x 10 = Kshs.4,725,000.00), costs against the Respondent, and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 is couched in mandatory terms and all its conditions must be met for a redundancy to be lawful; failure to comply renders the termination unfair under section 45.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment on account of redundancy was wrongful, unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Ten (10) months salary as compensation for unlawful termination of employment - Kshs.4,725,000.00.
- 3.The costs of this cause shall be borne by the Respondent.
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of the judgment till payment in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Employment Act, 2007 (specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyefu v Care International Somalia & another (Cause 324 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Statement of Claim dated 21st May, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1128/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.