Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Equatorial Nut Processors Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded six workers over Kshs 1.8 million because their employer could not prove its 'redundancy' was genuine or legally followed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an employment relationship existed between the Respondent and the grievants
- 2.Whether the termination of the grievants' employment was unfair and unlawful
- 3.Whether the grievants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim
Key legal issues
#Existence of employment relationship
Payslips issued by the Respondent and RW1's testimony on remuneration established that the grievants were employees.
The Respondent denied the employment relationship and argued no employment letters were produced. However, the grievants produced payslips issued by the Respondent, and RW1 testified in detail on each grievant's employment dates, promotions and salaries. The Court found the denial contradicted by the Respondent's own evidence of remuneration.
Substantive justification for redundancy
The Respondent failed to prove valid and fair reasons based on operational requirements.
The Respondent pleaded redundancy but adduced no evidence of operational requirements justifying it. Citing Kenya Airways v Aviation & Allied Workers Union, the Court held that underlying causes such as reorganisation do not suffice; the employer must show the termination is attributable to the redundancy under Section 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Employment Act.
Procedural fairness in redundancy
The Respondent failed to comply with the mandatory notice, selection and payment requirements of Section 40(1) of the Employment Act.
Despite pleading notices of redundancy dated 24th August 2023, the Respondent did not exhibit them; there was no evidence of notice to the County Labour Officer, no selection criteria, and no proof of payment of accrued leave, one month's notice or severance pay of 15 days per completed year. The termination was therefore procedurally unfair.
Underpayment claims
Several grievants were underpaid relative to the applicable minimum wage orders, quantified per grievant against the Legal Notices in force.
The Court reviewed the applicable Legal Notices (General Wage Orders) against each grievant's payslips and position classifications. It quantified underpayments for grievants 1 to 6, declining periods where payslips were absent. Where the Respondent's evidence showed pay above the applicable minimum, no underpayment was found for those periods.
Locus standi of the Claimant union
Not determined as a separate issue despite being raised; the claim succeeded on the merits.
The Respondent contested the Union's locus standi for want of a recognition agreement and proof of membership. The Court framed no issue on this and did not resolve it expressly, proceeding instead to find an employment relationship and unfair termination, with the grievants testifying personally.
Legal principles established
#- Termination on account of redundancy must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair.
- The employer bears the evidential burden of justifying redundancy as the reason for termination under Section 45(2)(b)(ii).
- Compliance with the notice, selection and payment requirements of Section 40(1) of the Employment Act must be demonstrated by evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Award to 1st grievant (Jacinta Muthoni Mwangi): Kshs 556,234.84 (notice Kshs 18,000; 8 months' compensation Kshs 144,000; underpaid salary Kshs 394,234.84)
- 2.Award to 2nd grievant (Peninah Wambura Muriuki): Kshs 371,356.65 (notice Kshs 18,000; 8 months' compensation Kshs 144,000; underpaid salary Kshs 209,356.65)
- 3.Award to 3rd grievant (Hellen Kabura Irungu): Kshs 356,054.40 (notice Kshs 18,000; 8 months' compensation Kshs 144,000; underpaid salary Kshs 194,054.40)
- 4.Award to 4th grievant (Zuhura Wanjiku Hadi): Kshs 199,887.60 (notice Kshs 19,800; 8 months' compensation Kshs 158,400; underpaid salary Kshs 21,687.60)
- 5.Award to 5th grievant (Elizabeth Mwende): Kshs 143,639.00 (notice Kshs 14,944.54; 8 months' compensation Kshs 119,556.32; underpaid salary Kshs 9,138.14)
- 6.Award to 6th grievant (Joyce Wanjiru Irungu): Kshs 200,590.00 (notice Kshs 18,000; 8 months' compensation Kshs 144,000; underpaid salary Kshs 38,590.00)
- 7.Interest on the respective total sums at court rates from 30 days after the date of judgment until payment in full
- 8.Respondent to issue each grievant with a certificate of service within 14 days
- 9.Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Referral under Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following conciliation of a trade dispute reported to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection
Relief refused
#Claim for service gratuity
No contractual or statutory basis established for its payment
Reinstatement (not expressly granted though sought)
The Court instead awarded notice pay, compensation and underpaid salary per grievant
Underpayment claims for periods lacking documentary proof
Underpayment cannot be ascertained for periods without payslips (e.g. 2nd grievant January 2004 to December 2012)
Costs
The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is well settled that termination on account of redundancy must be both substantively justified and procedurally fair.
no evidence was placed before the Court to establish or justify the alleged redundancy as the reason for the termination of the grievants' employment.
Indeed, the record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent paid the grievants their statutory entitlements under Sections 40(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the Employment Act.
In the final analysis, the Claim succeeds, and the Court makes the following awards in favour of the grievants:
Interest shall accrue on the respective total sums at court rates with effect from 30 days after the date of this judgment until payment in full.
The Respondent shall issue each of the grievants with a certificate of service within 14 days from the date of this Judgment.
The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Transcription error in RW1's testimony on the 1st grievant flagged with (sic) in the judgment itself
Typographical error in a monetary figure in the 1st grievant's underpayment table
COVID-19 video-conferencing order appended to a 2026 judgment despite the pandemic-era directions of 2020
2nd grievant's salary per RW1 (16,515 from 2013) is inconsistent with the underpayment table (11,015 for 2013-2014)
3rd grievant's employment history conflicts between RW1's testimony and the judgment's analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Equatorial Nut Processors Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E023 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2640/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.