Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Appeal dated 22nd August 2023 against Nakuru CM ELRC E91 of 2022· [2025] KEELRC 1847 (KLR)

Victonell Academy Ltd v Mwangi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E023 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1847 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2025
3,156 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer's redundancy failed because it skipped mandatory notices, though the employee's compensation was cut from ten months' salary to five.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant employer appealed against the judgment of Principal Magistrate Dr. Priscah Nyotah delivered on 26th July 2023 in Nakuru CM ELRC E91 of 2022, which found that the Respondent, an accounts clerk/receptionist employed on 18th January 2016 and terminated on 12th March 2020 on grounds of redundancy, had been unfairly terminated, awarding her 10 months' salary as compensation and severance pay. The Appellant argued that the Respondent had accepted all terminal dues without objection (relying on waiver/acquiescence authorities such as Coastal Bottlers and Trinity Prime Investment), that the process was fair, and that severance had been improperly calculated on partial years. The Respondent maintained that the employer failed to comply with the mandatory conditions in Section 40(1) of the Employment Act - no notice to the labour officer or to her of the intended redundancy, no consultation, no disclosed selection criteria, and no proof of the claimed business justification. The court, per Anna Ngibuini Mwaure J, framed a single issue: whether the appeal was merited. Applying Kenya Airways v Aviation & Allied Workers Union and Barclays Bank v Gladys Muthoni, the court held that there is a heavy burden on the employer to justify termination, and found that no notice of the planned redundancy was given to the labour officer, the Respondent was not given prior notice, and the selection criteria were not disclosed. The finding of unfair termination was upheld and the appeal on liability dismissed. However, the award of 10 months' compensation was held excessive given the Respondent's 4 years and 2 months of service, and was substituted with 5 months' equivalent (Kshs.136,350/=) plus Kshs.8,415/= severance, total Kshs.144,765/=, with interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment, and costs of the lower court and the appeal to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's termination on account of redundancy complied with Section 40(1) of the Employment Act

Holding

It did not. The employer gave no notice of the planned redundancy to the labour officer, the Respondent was not given prior notice, and the selection criteria were not disclosed, rendering the termination procedurally unfair.

Reasoning

The court applied Section 40(1)(a) and (b) and the Kenya Airways two-limb test of substantive justification and procedural fairness. The termination letter of 12th March 2020 stated only that services were no longer needed, with immediate effect. Payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice did not cure the failure to notify the labour officer and the employee of the intended redundancy, nor was the selection criteria disclosed. Following Barclays Bank and Hesbon Ngaruiya Waigi, the burden on the employer was not discharged.

p. 7
02

Whether the award of 10 months' salary as compensation was excessive

Holding

Yes. Compensation was reduced from 10 months to 5 months' equivalent (Kshs.136,350/=) plus outstanding severance of Kshs.8,415/=, given the Respondent's short service of 4 years and 2 months.

Reasoning

While upholding the finding of unfair termination, the court considered the length of service and held the maximum-equivalent award disproportionate, exercising its discretion to substitute a lower award under Section 49 principles, and added interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.

p. 7
03

Whether the Respondent's acceptance of terminal dues and execution of settlement barred her claim (waiver/acquiescence)

Holding

The claim was not barred; the mandatory requirements of Section 40(1) remained unmet and the employer failed to justify the termination.

Reasoning

The Appellant argued, citing Coastal Bottlers and Trinity Prime Investment, that the Respondent's acceptance of dues constituted a complete contract and waiver. The court did not adopt that line, instead holding that redundancy must strictly follow Section 40 and that the employer bore a heavy burden of proof which it failed to discharge, as no notice was given to the labour officer and no selection criteria were disclosed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A lawful redundancy termination must meet two key requirements: substantive justification and procedural fairness, and Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act must be complied with.
  • There is a heavy burden of proof placed upon the employer to justify any termination of employment, including proof of notification of the labour officer.
  • Redundancy must strictly follow Section 40 of the Employment Act; failure to give notice of the planned redundancy to the labour officer and to the employee renders the termination unfair.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed on liability - the finding that the Respondent's termination was unfair is upheld.
  2. 2.The award of 10 months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination is replaced with 5 months equivalent Kshs.136,350/= plus Kshs.8,415/= severance pay, total Kshs.144,765/=.
  3. 3.Interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment till full payment.
  4. 4.Costs of the lower court case and of the appeal awarded to the Respondent.
On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court (Nakuru CM ELRC)
Nakuru CM ELRC E91 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's judgment in CM ELRC E91 of 2022 (Employment Act and ELRC Act framework; judgment does not cite a specific jurisdictional article)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Victonell Academy Ltd v Mwangi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E023 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1847 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd August 2023 against Nakuru CM ELRC E91 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1847/eng@2025-06-25

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