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

United Millers Limited v Magetto (Appeal E079 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR) (27 June 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1871
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1871 (KLR)
Decided
27 June 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment of the Hon. Chief Magistrate Priscah Wamucii Nyota, dated 6th November 2024, in Nakuru C.M.E & L.R.C Cause Number E292 of 2023, between the Partis hereinCoramJ. Rika
The Court declined the appeal and ordered costs to the Respondent.

Facts

Jeremiah Magetto, an employee of United Millers Limited, was terminated due to redundancy. The Trial Court found that while other requirements under Section 40[1] of the Employment Act were satisfied, the requirement under Section 40[1][c] on selection criteria was not satisfied.

Issues

  • Whether the Trial Court erred in finding that the requirement under Section 40[1][c] on selection criteria was not satisfied.
  • Whether the Appellant closed down its operations at Nakuru Refinery where the Respondent worked as a Driver and there was no requirement to apply the selection criteria, under Section 40[1][c] of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The Court held that the Trial Court did not err in its evaluation of evidence and application of Section 40[1][c] of the Employment Act; there was no evidence presented by the Appellant establishing that its plant was shut down.

Outcome

Appeal Declined

Orders

  • The Appeal is declined on the same grounds given by the Court in Appeal No. E076 of 2024 cited above.
  • Costs to the Respondent.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case