Shihemi v Sendwave Limited (Cause E658 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Sendwave's redundancy of an HR Generalist unfair because her actual job was never declared redundant, awarding her over Kshs 3 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination on account of redundancy was fair and lawful
The termination was unfair and unlawful: the Claimant's position of HR Generalist was never declared redundant, the reasons for redundancy were vague, there was no evidence of consultation, and Section 40 requirements were not met
The offer letter and payslips showed the Claimant was employed and remained a HR Generalist until termination; the positions declared redundant were People Business Partner and QA Analyst. RW1 confirmed her role was never varied, that People Business Partner positions remained occupied, and that there was no evidence of consultation. The notice reasons were ambiguous and generalized. The termination therefore failed the mandatory minimum standards under Section 40 and was substantively and procedurally flawed.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to remedies
Entitled to compensation under Sections 49 and 50; awarded five months' salary (Kshs 3,015,273) but the Article 41 constitutional claim was dismissed for lack of evidence
A finding of unfair termination entitles the claimant to compensation under Sections 49 and 50, assessed against the thirteen Section 49(4) factors. Considering roughly two years of service, five months' salary was deemed sufficient. The constitutional claim failed because no basis was laid and no evidence led in proof of the alleged violation of the right to fair labour practices.
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot lawfully terminate an employee on account of redundancy where the position the employee actually holds was not among those declared redundant
- The conditions in Section 40 of the Employment Act are mandatory and must all be complied with
- Reasons for redundancy must be genuine, specific and substantiated, not vague or generalized
- Meaningful pre-redundancy consultation is required and the employer bears the burden of proving it occurred
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment on account of redundancy is unfair.
- 2.An order that the Respondent pays the Claimant five months' salary as compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 3,015,273/-.
- 3.The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit and interest from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Section 40, 49 and 50 invoked)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shihemi v Sendwave Limited (Cause E658 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1818/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.