SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mogire Mageto James & 12 others v Vitafoam Products Limited [2022] KEELRC 963 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 963 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
963
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 963 (KLR)
Decided
28 January 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramMogire Mageto James
Holding

The 1st-7th claimants left employment before the redundancy notice was issued, and the 6th and 7th claimants were dismissed before the redundancy declaration. Therefore, the redundancy was not justified and was not done in accordance with the procedure set out under section 40 of the Employment Act.

Facts

The 1st-7th claimants left employment before the redundancy notice was issued on 22.4.2015. The 6th and 7th claimants were dismissed on 18.3.2015. The 8th-13th claimants claim res judicata.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st-7th claimants were affected by the redundancy notice
  2. Whether the 8th-13th claimants' claim is res judicata
  3. Whether the redundancy was justified
  4. Whether the redundancy was done in accordance with the procedure set out under section 40 of the Employment Act
  5. Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court found that the 1st-7th claimants left employment before the redundancy notice was issued, and the 6th and 7th claimants were dismissed before the redundancy declaration. Thus, the redundancy was not justified and was not done in accordance with the procedure set out under section 40 of the Employment Act.

Outcome

The claimants' claims were dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement
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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case