Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedStatement of Claim dated 15th February, 2022· [2025] KEELRC 2202 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v K & A Self Selection Stores Limited (Cause E110 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2202 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 July 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,105 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that computed redundancy pay but never paid it was ordered to settle the dues plus six months' salary compensation to each worker.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an undefended claim by a trade union on behalf of three grievants - Joseph Gachora, Benson Wanjagi and Elizabeth Njoki - seeking terminal benefits following redundancy. The grievants were declared redundant on 30th March 2021 when the Respondent closed its business. The Respondent computed and communicated the redundancy dues (Kshs. 414,804, Kshs. 592,415 and Kshs. 553,935 respectively) and undertook to pay in instalments, but never did so, going silent despite the union's enquiries. A trade dispute was reported on 2nd June 2021; the Conciliator issued a certificate of unresolved dispute recommending payment within six months, which was also ignored. The Respondent, though properly served by email with the Statement of Claim and mention notices as attested by affidavits of service, neither entered appearance nor filed a defence. The court framed three issues: whether the Respondent owed the terminal dues, whether the claimant was entitled to relief, and costs. Finding the Respondent's failure to pay tabulated and agreed redundancy benefits contrary to Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007, and an unfair labour practice under Section 45, and noting the binding effect of conciliator recommendations under Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the court allowed the claim in part. It issued a declaration that the Respondent's conduct was wrongful, unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional, ordered payment of the tabulated dues within 30 days, awarded six (not the 12 sought) months' gross salary as compensation totalling Kshs. 2,101,682.00, and awarded costs to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent owed the grievants' terminal dues on redundancy

Holding

Yes - the Respondent tabulated and agreed the redundancy benefits but failed to pay, breaching Section 40 of the Employment Act and engaging in unfair labour practice under Section 45.

Reasoning

The grievants were declared redundant on 30th March 2021 and the Respondent computed and communicated the amounts due, undertaking to pay in instalments but went silent. The court found the witness statement, correspondence and meeting records corroborated non-payment and disregard of the conciliator's recommendation, establishing the debt on a balance of probabilities.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

Yes, but compensation was reduced to six months' gross salary per grievant rather than the 12 months claimed.

Reasoning

Having found the Respondent wrongfully withheld agreed redundancy dues, the court held the claimant entitled to relief. It issued a declaration of wrongfulness and unconstitutionality, ordered payment of the tabulated dues within 30 days, and awarded six months' gross salary as compensation per grievant, with costs to the claimant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Employers are mandated to pay terminal benefits upon redundancy, and failure to pay tabulated and agreed redundancy benefits constitutes an unfair labour practice.
  • Parties are bound by a conciliator's recommendations under Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Respondent's conduct of refusing to meet and pay the grievants' redundancy dues is wrongful, unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional.
  2. 2.The Respondent is ordered to meet and pay the grievants their terminal benefits within 30 days: Joseph Gachora Kshs. 414,804; Benson Wanjagi Kshs. 592,415; Elizabeth Njoki Kshs. 553,935.
  3. 3.The Respondent shall pay each grievant six (6) months' gross salary as compensation for the unlawful withholding of benefits: Joseph Gachora Kshs. 199,014.00; Benson Wanjagi Kshs. 142,500.00; Elizabeth Njoki Kshs. 199,014.00; total Kshs. 2,101,682.00.
  4. 4.The costs of this cause shall be borne by the Respondent.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 40
  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Labour Relations ActSection 62

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Labour Relations Act, 2007 (dispute over redundancy terminal dues following an unresolved conciliation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v K & A Self Selection Stores Limited (Cause E110 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 15th February, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2202/eng@2025-07-23

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