Odhiambo v SGS Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 256 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2790 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled SGS Kenya's redundancy was fake because the company hired replacements, awarding the manager 12 months' salary — Kshs 5.67 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redundancy of the Claimant was valid and genuine
The redundancy was not genuine; the Respondent had no valid reason to declare the Claimant redundant and was motivated by a desire to get rid of him for undisclosed reasons.
The court found credible CW2's evidence that he offered to retire in the Claimant's place and the Managing Director accepted, causing withdrawal of the first redundancy notice. After CW2 retired on 31st March 2020, the Respondent hired two new employees in the same Multi-lab department under the Claimant's supervision, then issued a fresh redundancy notice worded the same as the withdrawn one, adding COVID-19 as a reason. The work had not diminished; the justification was pretentious, shifting the evidential burden to the employer, which it failed to discharge.
Whether the Respondent followed a fair procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act
Procedurally unfair: notice was given but there was no genuine consultation and the selection criteria were not explained, violating section 40(1)(c), 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Although 30 days' notice was issued to the Claimant and the labour office, no meaningful consultation ensured during that period. The selection criterion that prioritised two newly recruited employees over the head of department with long and effective service was never explained to the Claimant, contrary to section 40(1)(c) which requires due regard to seniority in time and to the skill, ability and reliability of each affected employee. The court relied on Kenya Airways and Helga Olany that consultation must be real and not a charade.
What reliefs the Claimant is entitled to
The Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought under section 49(1), (2) and (3) of the Employment Act, with maximum compensation of 12 months' salary in lieu of reinstatement.
Applying section 49(4) factors, the court noted the Claimant lost a high-profile head-of-department job unlawfully with no proved contribution to the termination, had over 7 years of good service and 19 years' experience, and was unlikely to secure equivalent employment in his specialised field. The relationship with the Respondent had broken down and reinstatement would be difficult, so the court awarded the maximum 12 months' gross salary as compensation plus interest and costs.
Legal principles established
#- Redundancy requires both a genuine substantive reason and a fair procedural process including meaningful consultation.
- Where an employee shows his work was not superfluous because others were hired to perform his duties, the evidential burden shifts to the employer to prove the redundancy was genuine.
- Consultation in a redundancy process must be genuine and not a formality.
Court orders
#- 1.An award of Kshs. 5,670,794.28 being the equivalent of 12 months salary for unlawful termination of employment (Kshs. 472,566.19 x 12)
- 2.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
- 3.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; the suit was filed in this Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo v SGS Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 256 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2790 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi), judgment dated 16th October 2025 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2790/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.