Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedE&LRC Appeal (Nakuru) - companion to E076 of 2024· [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)

United Millers Limited v Magetto (Appeal E079 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2025
JRJames Rika
438 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer lost its appeal because it never consulted employees or used fair selection criteria before making them redundant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, United Millers Limited, appealed against a Trial Court decision awarding the Respondent, Jeremiah Magetto, a former Driver at its Nakuru Refinery, the equivalent of six months' salary as compensation for unfair and unlawful redundancy. The Trial Court had found that although the Appellant satisfied other requirements of Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, it failed the selection-criteria requirement under Section 40(1)(c). The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th November 2024 argued that its closure of the Nakuru Refinery operations meant there was no need to apply selection criteria. Parties agreed the appeal would be determined on the record of appeal and written submissions. The court adopted as its own decision the reasoning in its judgment in the companion appeal, Nakuru E&LRC Appeal No. E076 of 2024 (United Millers Limited v Daniel Shiraku Okusimba). It held that the Trial Court did not err: no evidence established that the plant was shut down; the scaling down of operations from August 2021 suggested skeleton manpower remained; operations had not closed altogether when redundancy notices issued in October 2021; and the process lacked redundancy consultation, the Appellant only communicating unilateral decisions through abrupt notices and internal memos. The appeal was accordingly declined and costs awarded to the Respondent. Judgment dated, signed and released electronically at Nakuru on 27th June 2025 by James Rika, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Application of Section 40(1)(c) of the Employment Act in redundancy

Holding

The Trial Court correctly found the selection criteria requirement was not satisfied; the employer failed to prove total closure of operations.

Reasoning

The court adopted its decision in the companion appeal E076 of 2024, holding there was no evidence the plant was shut down. Operations were only scaled down from August 2021, leaving skeleton manpower, and the October 2021 redundancy notices proceeded without consultation with employees, amounting to unilateral decisions communicated through abrupt notices and internal memos.

p. 1
02

Duty to consult in redundancy

Holding

The redundancy process was carried out without regard to consultation; the employer was obligated to consult employees throughout.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that redundancy under Section 40(1) demands consultation at every stage. From August 2021 to October 2021, the Appellant only communicated unilateral decisions through abrupt notices and internal memos, breaching the consultative principle and rendering the termination unfair, justifying the award of 6 months' salary.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer carrying out redundancy is bound to consult its employees; unilateral notices and internal memos do not satisfy the obligation under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act.
  • Where operations are merely scaled down rather than wholly closed, an employer must still apply selection criteria under Section 40(1)(c).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is declined on the same grounds given by the Court in Appeal No. E076 of 2024
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent
On appeal from
ELRC Trial Court (subordinate)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act against a Trial Court award for unfair redundancy

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "United Millers Limited v Magetto (Appeal E079 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). E&LRC Appeal (Nakuru) - companion to E076 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1871/eng@2025-06-27

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