Gachoki v Church World Service, RSC Africa (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E111 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2061 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a redundancy challenge filed as a constitutional petition, confirming such disputes must be brought as ordinary Employment Act claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Constitutional avoidance
Redundancy disputes under sections 40, 45 and 46 of the Employment Act should be litigated in a normal claim, not a constitutional petition
The court held that the grievances about notice, selection criteria and terminal dues are matters ordinarily dealt with under the Employment Act, the ELRC Act and the ELRC Procedure Rules. Invoking the constitutional jurisdiction for such disputes violates the principle of constitutional avoidance, which the court framed as an issue for determination.
Cause of action and prematurity
At filing, the petition disclosed no cause of action because the redundancy process was still underway and compliance could not yet be assessed
The court found that when the petition was filed the redundancy process had only commenced and it was too early to determine whether the Respondent complied with section 40 on notice, selection and terminal benefits. The process concluded during the suit, the Petitioner's employment was terminated and terminal benefits were paid and received, yet the petition was never amended.
Mootness
The petition became moot upon completion of the redundancy and receipt of terminal benefits, rendering the remedies sought ineffective
The court noted the redundancy process concluded during the tenancy of the case, the Petitioner was terminated on grounds of redundancy and received terminal benefits including a discharge voucher. The injunctions and conservatory orders sought could no longer serve any purpose, and the petition should have been amended to capture the new reality.
Violation of Articles 41 and 47
Not proved on a balance of probability that the redundancy violated constitutional rights
The Petitioner alleged unfair labour practice and inadequate notice under section 40(1)(a) and (b) and ILO Convention No. 158, but the court found the Petitioner neither disclosed nor proved that the redundancy exercise as commenced and finalized violated Articles 41 and 47. The petition's prematurity also made such a conclusion unavailable to any reasonable court.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition is an inappropriate vehicle for disputes governed by the Employment Act regarding redundancy and termination for operational reasons; such matters belong in a normal memorandum of claim (constitutional avoidance).
- A petition filed prematurely to pre-empt a lawful ongoing redundancy process, and not amended to capture the eventual termination, discloses no cause of action and is moot.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachoki v Church World Service, RSC Africa (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E111 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2061 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (ELRC, Nairobi) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2061/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.