Kyao & 111 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1324 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ordered Devki Steel Mills to pay 111 former workers their unpaid redundancy dues under the 2012 CBA, with the company also bearing the legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim filed on 18/12/2018 was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Not time barred. Although the lockout was in June 2015, the employees remained at work under interim orders granted on 10/7/2015 in ELRC Cause No. 1197/2015; that suit was dismissed on 20/12/2016, which became the effective date of termination, so the claim filed 18/12/2018 was within three years.
The court traced the sequence: lockout on 29th June 2015, return-to-work orders on 10th July 2015 which were extended, and dismissal of the union's suit on 20th December 2016. The employees ceased work only upon that dismissal. The cause of action therefore accrued on 20/12/2016 and a claim filed 18/12/2018 fell within the statutory three-year period.
Whether the CBA in force at termination was the 2012-2014 CBA
The CBA in force at the time of the members' termination in 2015 was the one registered on 15/8/2012, whose clause 26 governed redundancy dues.
The claimants produced a chain of registered CBAs, the last being registered on 15/8/2012 to remain in force for two years until amended. The court accepted this as the CBA in force in 2015 and held redundancy dues must be computed under its clause 26 rates rather than the 2008 CBA the respondent claimed to have applied.
Whether the claimants were entitled to the redundancy/severance dues claimed
Yes. The respondent produced no evidence that it paid the redundancy dues, severance pay or notices; the claimants are entitled to payment per the 2012 CBA, with quantum to be computed by the parties as an addendum to the final judgment.
The respondent asserted it paid terminal dues of Kshs. 17,253,060 per the 2008 CBA, but the witness conceded there was no forwarding letter or stamp on the bank document, no evidence of consultation or individual notices, and no proof of payment by Jokali. Faced with this evidentiary vacuum, the court found the dues unpaid and enforceable under the registered CBA.
Whether the termination was unfair and whether general damages were payable
The court declined to determine the fairness of the redundancy, holding the claim before it was confined to payment of severance pay per the schedule, so neither the unlawfulness of the process nor compensation for wrongful redundancy arose.
Although the court framed fairness as an issue and the claimants sought 12 months' compensation, it characterised the claim as one for payment of severance pay per the schedule submitted and held the issue of unlawfulness did not arise, effectively refusing the general damages head without adjudicating justification or procedure.
Legal principles established
#- Where interim orders keep employees at work and the underlying suit is dismissed, the date of dismissal of that suit is the effective date of termination and the day the cause of action arose for limitation purposes under section 90 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimants' members their redundancy/severance pay as per the 2012 CBA
- 2.The amounts to be calculated by the parties as per the court's judgment and included in the final judgment as an addendum
- 3.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the registered CBAs (claim for severance, notice pay and certificates of service)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyao & 111 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1324 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Statement of Claim dated 18th December 2018) – Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1985/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.