Nyaanga & 20 others v Parapet Cleaning Services (Cause E079 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2541 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court found 21 cleaners quit their jobs for a new employer, so their claims for redundancy pay and unfair termination compensation failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the redundancy notices
The 25-day redundancy notices were invalid ab initio as section 40 of the Employment Act requires at least one month's notice.
Section 40 of the Employment Act requires a redundancy notice of not less than one month. The notices issued on 23rd June 2020 were to crystallise on 18th July 2020, approximately 25 days later, falling short of the statutory minimum. However, the invalidity did not ultimately determine the outcome because the Respondent revoked the notices before they matured.
Whether the redundancy could be revoked before crystallising
The court found the Claimants were served with revocation notices and that the redundancy process was extinguished before it matured.
The original redundancy notices reserved the Respondent's right to revoke them. Following the trade union's advice, the Respondent sought alternative placements and issued revocation notices between 9th and 16th July 2020. The court credited the Respondent's witnesses, who confirmed receipt of the notices, over the ambivalent testimony of the Claimants' witnesses, and declared the redundancy process scuttled before crystallisation.
Whether the Claimants absconded or were terminated
The Claimants abandoned their employment by moving to Lupat Cleaning Services Ltd rather than resuming duty with the Respondent.
The Claimants' own witnesses admitted on oath that they transited to Lupat Cleaning Services Ltd, which took over the Absa Bank contract, while rejecting the Respondent's deployment offer. Their trade union's letter of 5th October 2020 confirmed they declined to continue with the Respondent. The court found the Claimants ended the employment relationship themselves by rejecting redeployment.
Entitlement to the reliefs claimed
All reliefs were declined for lack of merit, evidentiary support, or statutory eligibility.
Since there was no unlawful termination or redundancy, the declaratory, notice pay, severance and compensation claims failed. Salary for July 2020 was held paid on the strength of pay slips unrebutted by the Claimants; service pay was barred by NSSF registration; NSSF/NHIF remittance was conceded; caution money lacked evidence; and the leave claim was contradicted by the Respondent's automated leave data and the Claimants' own witness.
Legal principles established
#- A redundancy notice must be for a minimum period of one month; a 25-day notice is invalid ab initio.
- An employer may revoke a redundancy notice before it matures, thereby nullifying the redundancy process midstream.
- An employee who takes up employment elsewhere ceases to be an employee of the former employer by operation of law, ending the former employer's disciplinary control.
- Case-law requires consultation of employees during a redundancy notwithstanding the absence of an express statutory duty.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit by the Claimants is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations dispute)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaanga & 20 others v Parapet Cleaning Services (Cause E079 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2541 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC cause at Mombasa (redundancy/unfair termination claim by 21 former cleaners). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2541/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.