Mwarua Yawa Nzao & 19 others v Babs Security Services Limited [2018] KEELRC 2299 (KLR)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 2299
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2299 (KLR)
- Decided
- 2 March 2018
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramONESMUS MAKAU, LINNET NDOLO
Holding
The termination of the Claimants' services was unfair due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedure for terminating employment on account of redundancy.
Facts
The Claimants were employed by the Respondent as security guards and were terminated on 14.1.2016 due to redundancy without prior notice.
Issues
- Whether the termination of the Claimants' contract of service was unfair
- Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought
Reasoning
The Employment Act requires that before terminating the services of an employee on account of redundancy, the employer shall first serve the employee with at least one month written notice, followed by fair selection process, then payment of salary in lieu of notice, accrued benefits plus severance pay.
Outcome
The Court awarded one month salary in lieu of notice plus compensation of 6 months' salary under section 49 and 50 of the Act.
Orders
- Award of one month salary in lieu of notice plus compensation of 6 months' salary under section 49 and 50 of the Act
- Award of salary underpayment to each Claimant
- Award of service pay at the conventional rate of 15 days pay per completed year of service
- Award of leave and public holidays worked
Remedies
- One month salary in lieu of notice plus compensation of 6 months' salary under section 49 and 50 of the Act
- Salary underpayment to each Claimant
- Service pay at the conventional rate of 15 days pay per completed year of service
- One year's leave for the Claimants
Authorities cited
Legislation (3)
- Employment Act
- Legal Notice No.117 of 2015
- Legal Notice No. 197 of 2013
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…