Onyango v Mijengo Investments Limited (Appeal E045 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3730 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a sawmill's immediate 'redundancy' dismissal unlawful, awarding the worker seven months' salary because the employer skipped proper notice and consultation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act in redundancy
Termination violated Section 40: there was no proper notification of redundancy, no notice period, no real consultations and no involvement of the Labour Office, rendering the termination unfair and unlawful
The letter of termination dated 7th July 2022 took immediate effect the same day it referenced consultations held that day. There was no notification of redundancy, no notice of termination effective immediately, no consultation, and no involvement of the Labour Office. Applying the German School Society decision, notice and genuine consultation are mandatory under Section 40. Immediate termination rendered the procedure a blatant violation and the termination unfair.
Whether the signed termination letter discharged the employer from further claims
The Appellant signed the letter only in acknowledgment of receipt; it was not a discharge agreement
The Court found that execution of the termination letter did not amount to a discharge agreement absolving the Respondent from further claims, since the Appellant signed it in acknowledgment of receipt only. Consequently, the payment recorded in the letter did not bar the unfair termination claim.
Entitlement to compensation and terminal benefits
Compensation of 7 months' salary was merited for the unfair termination; claims for additional terminal benefits failed as they were unsubstantiated and already paid
The Appellant worked 6 years and 5 months earning Kshs. 14,200 monthly, on a no-fault redundancy. He was paid Kshs. 105,444 in terminal benefits including severance of Kshs. 14,200 against a claim of Kshs. 11,433, notice and leave. Claims of underpayment, overtime and public holidays were not articulated. Compensation of 7 months' salary (Kshs. 99,400) was granted.
Legal principles established
#- The purpose of redundancy notice under Section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, as reflected in ILO Convention 158, is to give the parties an opportunity to consider measures to avert or minimize termination and its effects
- Consultations preceding redundancy must be real, not a charade, and notice to the Employee, Trade Union and the Labour Office paves way for consultations
- A letter of termination signed by an employee in acknowledgment of receipt only does not constitute a discharge agreement absolving the employer from further claims
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is allowed on the ground that termination was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent shall pay the Appellant the equivalent of 7 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, at Kshs. 99,400
- 3.No costs on the Appeal
- On appeal from
- Trial Court (ELRC subordinate court, not named in judgment)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an employment claim decided by the Trial Court; appeal via Memorandum of Appeal dated 4th June 2024, disposed of by consensual order of 8th July 2025 on the strength of the record and submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Mijengo Investments Limited (Appeal E045 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3730 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal No E045 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3730/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.