Nyabala v Special Olympics Kenya (Cause E534 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2723 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found Special Olympics Kenya's redundancy was fake and unfair, awarding the sacked CEO Kshs. 1.5 million plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification of the redundancy
The redundancy was not genuine; the Respondent failed to establish a valid and fair reason based on operational requirements
The Court found conflicting minutes of the 20th January 2023 meeting, noted the Claimant continued to act as National Director and correspond with UNICEF after the alleged abolition of his position, and found a July 2024 advertisement for a Chief Executive Officer position equivalent to his role. RW1 did not refute the Claimant's email alleging an ultimatum to resign. These inconsistencies undermined the claim that the office was genuinely abolished.
Procedural fairness under Section 40(1) of the Employment Act
The Respondent did not comply with the mandatory notice and consultation requirements, rendering the termination procedurally unfair
The Court doubted that the Claimant was served with the 13th February 2023 redundancy notice since there was no acknowledgment of receipt and the Claimant continued working. No evidence of pre-redundancy consultations was adduced, contrary to Section 40(1) and Article 13 of ILO Convention No. 158, though terminal dues under Section 40(1)(e), (f) and (g) were paid.
Remedies
Compensatory damages of five months' gross salary awarded; accrued leave and unexpired-contract salary refused
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the Court exercised discretion to award five months' gross salary as compensation, considering the duration of employment and circumstances of termination. The leave claim failed because it had been settled, and the unexpired-term salary claim was refused as anticipatory.
Legal principles established
#- Termination on grounds of redundancy must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair
- The employer bears the burden of proving that a redundancy termination was valid, fair and grounded on operational requirements
- Failure to follow the Section 40 procedure renders a redundancy termination unprocedural and unfair
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration is issued that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Claimant is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs. 1,500,000.00, being the equivalent of five (5) months of his last salary
- 3.The sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Claimant is awarded the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Section 45) and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyabala v Special Olympics Kenya (Cause E534 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2723 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2723/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.