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 AllowedNot stated in judgment text· [2025] KEELRC 2803 (KLR)

Wamukoya v G4S Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1557 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2803 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 October 2025
MNMATHEWS NDUMA
2,852 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that retrenching an employee while her job continued under a new title was unfair, awarding her 12 months' salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed from the late 1990s and rising to the position of senior cash processing manager, sued the Respondent claiming that her termination on grounds of redundancy on 10th August 2018 was unlawful and unfair. She sought a declaration, twelve months' compensation, general damages, a certificate of service and costs. The Respondent defended the termination as a genuine restructuring affecting 150 positions, relying on a notice to the labour office dated 6th August 2018 and payment of terminal dues. The court framed two issues: whether the redundancy was genuine and the procedure fair, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought. The court found the Respondent's organogram showed the cash function remained intact and the Claimant's portfolio was simply handed to a newly created cash manager Nairobi, so the position had not become superfluous within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act. No evidence was led on the selection criteria, no consultations were held as required by section 40, and no effort was made to accommodate the Claimant in the alternative role, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Congil Kenya Limited v Mwaka on the purpose of the section 40(1) notices. The court held the termination violated sections 40, 41, 43 and 45 and awarded the maximum twelve months' compensation under section 49(1)(c), relying on the Kenya Airways decision. Judgment was entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 3,278,959.08 with interest and costs. The claims for general damages and a certificate of service were not included in the final orders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy was genuine and the procedure fair

Holding

The termination was not a genuine redundancy; it violated sections 40, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Respondent's own organogram showed the cash function remained intact and the Claimant's portfolio was handed to a newly created cash manager Nairobi position. No evidence showed how the selection process was actualised within three days of the general notice to the labour office, no discussions were held with the Claimant, and no effort was made to accommodate her in the alternative role. Changing a job title is not abolition of office.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation

Holding

The Claimant was entitled to the maximum 12 months' gross salary under section 49(1)(c) and (4), notwithstanding payment of terminal benefits

Reasoning

The Claimant served diligently for over ten years, did not contribute to the termination, was harassed and victimised by her supervisor, and was not compensated for loss of job and income. Terminal dues had been paid but statutory compensation for the unfair termination remained payable; the court relied on the Kenya Airways decision on the section 49(1)(c) remedy.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The notice under section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act exists to enable parties to consult on measures to avert or minimise termination and to mitigate its adverse effects
  • Changing the title of a position does not amount to abolition of the function where the work remains intact
  • Section 49(1)(c) compensation is capped at twelve months' gross salary and quantum considers the employee's chances of securing alternative employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kshs. 3,278,959.08 in compensation
  2. 2.Interest at court rates from date of judgment till payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 40(1)(a) and (b)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 2 (definition of redundancy)
  • Employment Act, 2007sections 40, 41, 43, 45
  • Employment Act, 2007sections 49(1)(c) and (4)
  • Industrial Relations Charter, 1984membership of union restriction

Cases cited (2)

  • Congil Kenya Limited v Mwaka and 3 others
    Civil Appeal 54 of 2009 [2021] KECA 115 (KLR)
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Act (employment dispute; sections 40, 41, 43, 45 and 49 of the Employment Act 2007 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wamukoya v G4S Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1557 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2803/eng@2025-10-16

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