Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v K & A Self Selection Stores Limited (Cause E110 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2202 (KLR)

further discussion on the schedule of payment. This was not to be despite enquiry from the claimant. The Respondent went mute on the subject. 6. The claimant thereafter reported a trade dispute on 2nd June, 2021 with the appointment of a Conciliator but despite the parties forwarding their representations, nothing came out of it and the conciliator issued a certificate of un-resolved dispute with a recommendation that the redundancy benefits be paid out to the claimant within six (6) months of the date of report. This was not to be despite the partys engagement on the subject. 7. The grievant continue to sufier due to the inaction on the part of Respondent which also amount to unfair labour practices. They continue to withhold these terminal dues without recourse to any ensue or reason. 8. The claimant prays as follows; i. Declare the respondent’s actions as unfair/unlawful and unconstitutional. ii. Order the Respondent to pay he grievants all their benefits within 30 days as follows; (as tabulated by the respondent) 1. 1st grievant = Kshs.414,804 2. 2nd grievant = Kshs.592,415 3. 3rd grievant = Kshs.553,935 iii. Order the Respondent to pay the grievants 12 months gross pay as compensation for unfair/ unlawful action of refusal to pay their terminal dues. iv. Costs of the sit to the claimant. v. Any other relief that the Hon. Court may deem fit to meet the ends of justice. 9. This matter remains undefended in toto. This is despite service. 10. The Respondent was served with the Statement of Claim, Mention Notices, and subsequent court documents via email, as confirmed by the Afidavits of Service sworn by Difinah Mothaga Nyamwange on; i. 9th May, 2024 - Mention Notice for 7th March 2024 ii. 31st January, 2025 - Mention Notice for 18th February 2025 iii. 17th March, 2025 - Mention Notice for 19th March 2025 11. The Respondent failed to enter an appearance or file defence despite proper service as attested by the immutable email printouts attached to the Afidavits of Service. The matter therefore proceeded as undefended. 12. The issues for determination therefore are; 13. 1. Whether the Respondent is owing of the grievant’s terminal dues on redundancy. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought. 3. Who bears to costs of this claim? The 1st issue for determination is whether the Respondent is owing of the grievant’s terminal dues on redundancy. The claimant in support of their case relied on the Witness Statement of Joseph https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2202/eng@2025-07-23 2

page 2 of 4

Gachora, who detailed the Respondent’s failure to pay the agreed redundancy benefits. His testimony corroborated the Claimant’s submissions including the Respondent’s initial commitment to pay subsequent refusal to engage and disregard for the conciliator’s recommendations. The Claimant also produced correspondence and meeting records to demonstrate the Respondent’s breach of agreement and unfair labour practices. 14. The Employment Act, 2007 and the Labour Relations Act, 2007 mandate the payment of terminal benefits upon redundancy. The Respondent’s actions contravene Section 40 of the Employment Act, 2007 which outlines the procedure for termination on occasions of redundancy. Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 equally mandates and binds parties to conciliator’s recommendations. 15. This court’s jurisdiction to enforce such payments is well-established in precedents such as Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union [2014] eKLR where the court emphasized the employer’s obligation to pay agreed terminal dues. 16. The court finds that the Respondent’s failure to pay the redundancy benefits despite tabulating and agreeing to the amounts constitutes unfair labour practices under Section 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. Besides, this disregard for court processes and refusal to participate in proceedings demonstrates a lack of good faith. The claimant has presented an overwhelming case on a balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. The rights of employees and the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements must be upheld. The Respondent’s conduct is a stark reminder of the consequences of disregarding contractual obligations as enshrine in the CBAand generally other legal instruments on contract by parties. I therefore find a case of owing by the Respondent to the claimant and hold as such. 17. The 2nd issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought. She is. Aggrieved by the denial of agreed terms of engagement on redundancy benefit by the Respondent, she becomes entitled to the relief sought. 18. I am therefore inclined to allow the claim and order relief as follows; i. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent’s conduct and actions of refusing to meet and pay the grievant’s redundancy dues is wrongful, unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional. ii. The Respondent is ordered to meet and pay the grievants their terminal benefits tabulated hereunder within 30 days. iii. i. Joseph Gachora: Kshs. 414,804 ii. Benson Wanjagi: Kshs. 592,415 iii. Elizabeth Njoki: Kshs. 553,935 The Respondent shall pay each grievant six (6) months’ gross salary as compensation for the unlawful withholding of benefits: that is;Joseph Gachora: Kshs.33,169.00 x 6……………………..Kshs.199,014.00Benson Wanjagi: Kshs.23,750.00 x 6…………………… Kshs.142,500.00Elizabeth Njoki: Kshs.33,169.00 x 6 ……………………..Kshs.199,014.00 Total of claim ……………………………………..…...Kshs.2,101,682.00 iv. The costs of this cause shall be borne by the Respondent. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025. D. K. NJAGI MARETE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2202/eng@2025-07-23 3

page 3 of 4

JUDGE Appearances: Lilian Manene for the claimant union. No appearance for the Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2202/eng@2025-07-23 4

page 4 of 4