Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E140 of 2021· [2025] KEELRC 2177 (KLR)

Dibo & 8 others v Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E140 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2177 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 July 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
3,569 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed former Standard Chartered employees' redundancy claims because the bank followed the Employment Act's notice, consultation and payment rules.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants, former employees of Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited, challenged the termination of their employment on grounds of redundancy following a restructuring that merged Global Banking and Commercial Banking into Corporate Commercial and Institutional Banking. They alleged the redundancy was a smokescreen, that they were unfairly targeted and discriminated against, that the interview process for alternative roles had pre-determined outcomes, and that they were barred from their duties before their positions were phased out. They sought 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, punitive and aggravated damages, damages for discrimination, unpaid leave, balance of ex gratia payment, retention of loans at staff rates, costs and interest. The Respondent maintained that the restructuring was genuine, that it observed both the statutory conditions in Section 40 of the Employment Act and its own Group Redundancy Standard Policy, that affected employees were consulted, given opportunity to apply for alternative roles, and paid improved severance beyond the statutory minimum. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was lawful and fair, and whether the remedies sought were payable. Applying the settled distinction between the redundancy notice and the termination notice, and the requirement of consultation, the court found notice conditions satisfied; allegations of unfair selection and non-payment of benefits were unsupported by evidence. The claim was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Respondent. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 24th July 2025 by Linnet Ndolo, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether notice and consultation requirements under Section 40 of the Employment Act were met

Holding

The conditions on notice were satisfied: the Claimants received Notice of Risk of Redundancy, attended meetings, were given opportunity to candidate for new roles, and due notice was issued to the Ministry of Labour

Reasoning

The court found evidence that apart from termination letters, the Claimants were issued a Notice of Risk of Redundancy and there was a departmental meeting discussing redundancy. They were also given an opportunity to apply for new roles and notice was issued to the Ministry of Labour. Relying on the settled position that the Section 40(1)(a)/(b) notice is distinct from the termination notice and embodies consultation, the court was satisfied the notice conditions were met.

p. 9
02

Whether the selection criterion under Section 40(1)(c) was complied with

Holding

Condition (c) was complied with; allegations of unfair targeting were unsupported by evidence

Reasoning

The Claimants alleged they were unfairly targeted and that their roles remained intact after restructuring, but adduced no evidence. The Respondent showed it interviewed all affected employees and did a desktop review of performance, skills and competence for 2018-2020. Absent evidence to the contrary, the court found no reason to fault the Bank on selection.

p. 9
03

Whether statutory dues (leave, notice, severance) were paid

Holding

The Respondent discharged its obligations under conditions (e), (f) and (g), having paid improved severance beyond the statutory minimum

Reasoning

The Respondent asserted compliance with Section 40(1) of the Employment Act and payment of severance dues beyond the statutory minimum. The Claimants' assertion that they were not paid all their benefits was not supported by any evidence, so the court was satisfied the payment obligations were met.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) is separate and distinct from the termination notice under Section 40(1)(f)
  • The redundancy notice embodies an element of consultation with affected employees, directly or through their trade union
  • Consultation is an essential part of the redundancy process implied in Section 40 of the Employment Act and ensures substantive fairness

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimants' entire claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 2 (definition of redundancy); Section 40(1)(a)-(g); Section 40(1)(c)
  • Labour Relations ActAnalogous definition of redundancy

Cases cited (3)

  • Thomas De La Rue (K) Ltd v David Opondo Omutelema
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • The German School Society v Ohany & another
    [2023] KECA 894 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dibo & 8 others v Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E140 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E140 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2177/eng@2025-07-24

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