Mureu v Ressourcethica Kenya Limited (Cause E463 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1912 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a company's 'redundancy' was fake and unfair, awarding the ex-employee about Kshs 1.7 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Manner and grounds of separation
The Claimant's employment was terminated on 17th January 2023 on grounds of redundancy; the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and summary dismissal were an afterthought and inconsequential.
The letter of 17th January 2023 was an unequivocal unilateral termination on account of redundancy with a fixed last working day and a pre-tabulated severance package leaving no room for negotiation or counterproposal. The Respondent never communicated a contrary position before issuing the Notice to Show Cause a month later, and the backdated notice citing future absenteeism demonstrated bad faith amounting to an unfair labour practice.
Substantive justification for the redundancy
The Respondent failed to prove substantive justification for the redundancy.
While the letter asserted that restructuring rendered the Claimant's position redundant, no evidence was adduced to show the restructuring actually affected the Sanofi team in Kenya or that the Medical Sales Representative position fell off the structure. Applying Kenya Airways, the employer had to prove abolition of office rendering services superfluous, which it did not.
Procedural fairness of the redundancy under Section 40
The Respondent did not comply with Section 40(1)(b) - no notice of intention or labour officer notification - and held no pre-redundancy consultations; accrued leave was also not paid, so the termination was procedurally unfair.
The notice issued declared the redundancy rather than announcing an intention to declare it, leaving no room for consultation, and there was no evidence of notification to the labour office. No evidence of pre-redundancy consultations under ILO standards existed. Although notice pay and severance were provided in apparent compliance with Section 40(1)(f) and (g), accrued leave was omitted and the Respondent failed to produce leave records as required by Section 74(1)(f).
Selection criteria under Section 40(1)(c)
The selection criteria requirement was not relevant because there was only one Medical Sales Representative in the Sanofi team.
The criteria under Section 40(1)(c) applies across a particular class of employees affected by redundancy; it presupposes similar, comparable roles. Since there was no indication of other Medical Sales Representatives besides the Claimant, the requirement had no application.
Entitlement to reliefs
Claimant awarded the tabulated terminal benefits, six months' compensation, accrued leave pay and the retrenchment cover benefit; other heads declined.
Having found the redundancy substantively and procedurally unfair, the court awarded six months' compensation considering length of service and the Respondent's unfair labour practice conduct. The tabulated dues of Kshs 537,856 and uncontroverted leave pay of Kshs 17,384 were awarded. The Respondent's refusal to sign the Retrenchment Claim Form locked the Claimant out of her insurance benefit, recoverable capped at Kshs 150,000 monthly salary per Clause 9.2. House allowance, reimbursables, loan arrears and separate discrimination damages were refused.
Legal principles established
#- An employer relying on redundancy must prove that the termination is attributable to operational requirements and that the services of the employee have been rendered superfluous through abolition of office, job or occupation.
- The notice under Section 40(1)(b) of the Employment Act is a notice of intention to declare redundancy, issued before the redundancy takes effect, to enable consultation.
- The selection criteria under Section 40(1)(c) applies only across a class of similar employees affected by the redundancy.
- Separate general damages for discrimination and unfair labour practices are not awarded in addition to other remedies for the same violations.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment by way of redundancy was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.Award of Kshs 537,856.00 being the terminal benefits particularized in the addendum to the letter of termination dated 17th January 2023.
- 3.Compensatory damages of Kshs 1,117,284.00 being six months' gross salary.
- 4.Award of Kshs 17,384.00 being payment of accrued leave.
- 5.Award of Kshs 315,000.00 being the benefit under the retrenchment cover.
- 6.Total award of Kshs 1,987,524.00 less payments already received totalling Kshs 269,989.95, bringing the final award to Kshs 1,717,534.05.
- 7.Interest on the final award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
- 8.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (employment dispute; not expressly invoked in the extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mureu v Ressourcethica Kenya Limited (Cause E463 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1912 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 7th June 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1912/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.