1. Hurchins Manua Nyakwara (the Claimant) sued Village Enterprise (the Respondent) on 18 April 2024, alleging unfair termination of employment and discrimination.
2. The Respondent filed a Response on 29 May 2024, and the Cause was heard on 5 May 2025. The Claimant and a Vice President, People and Culture with the Respondent testified.
3. The Claimant filed his submissions on 10 June 2025 (should have been filed and served before 19 May 2025), and the Respondent on 9 June 2025.
4. The Claimant identified the Issues arising in his submissions as:
(i) Whether the Respondent’s termination of the Claimant’s employment on account of redundancy was fair?
(ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
5. The Respondent saw the Issues as:
(i) Whether the Claimant’s termination of employment on account of redundancy was unlawful?
(ii) Whether the Claimant has established the allegation of discriminatory actions, unfair treatment and unfair labour practices by the Respondent?
(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
6. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions.
Unfair termination of employment
Procedural fairness
7. The Claimant asserted that the Respondent unfairly terminated his employment on the ground of redundancy on 30 June 2023.
8. According to the Claimant, the Respondent did not serve the requisite notice upon the local Labour Officer, he was not consulted, and no objective criteria were used to select his position for redundancy.
9. The Respondent issued to the Claimant notice of intention to declare redundancy dated 18 April 2023. The notice referred to a meeting held on 14 April 2023 and indicated that the effective date of redundancy would be 30 June 2023. The notice was copied to the local Labour Officer and advised the Clamant that he would be paid earned salary, severance pay, notice pay and accrued leave.
10. The notice further informed the Claimant that the Respondent was open to further discussions.
11. The Claimant raised certain concerns, and the Respondent replied to the concerns on 25 April 2023.
12. Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, 2007 sets out the steps an employer should take before declaring a redundancy.
13. Prior to the notice of redundancy, the Respondent held a meeting with the Claimant on 14 April 2023, after which the notice was issued. The notice gave notice of more than 30 days and it invited the Claimant to further consultations. The Labour Officer acknowledged receipt of the notice.
14. The Claimant raised concerns in writing, and the Respondent addressed the concerns.
15. The Court is satisfied that the Respondent substantially complied with the processes envisaged under section 40(1) of the Employment Act, 2007.
Substantive fairness
16. Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007, place a burden on the employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for termination of employment even in cases of operational requirements.
17. The Claimant, who was serving as Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Director, contended that the Respondent did not use an objective criterion to identify the staff for redundancy and that he was not offered an alternative.
18. The Respondent’s witness testified that the redundancy was influenced by the need to obtain expertise in the area of monitoring and evaluation, operate within the geographic location in East Africa, free time for the Vice President for Impact to focus on fundraising and the need for strong executive leadership.
19. The witness also testified that the Claimant was requested to apply for the new position of Vice President for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning.
20. The Claimant did not apply for the position.
21. An employer has the discretion to organise and reorganise its business model without being hamstrung by Court supervision unless the process and reasons cannot be justified.
22. The Respondent gave reasons for its decision to reorganise, and these included freeing up the time of the Vice President Impact to focus on fundraising and creating the position of a Vice President Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning operating within the East African region.
23. The Claimant was allowed to pitch for the position but he declined.
24. The Court finds, in the circumstances, that the Respondent had valid and fair reasons to declare the position of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Director redundant.
Discrimination
25. The Claimant asserted that the Respondent discriminated against him because he was black.
26. According to the Claimant, the particulars of discrimination were that he was made to report to an employee junior to him, the Respondent had a penchant for dismissing black employees who disagreed with white colleagues, he was warned against disclosing the redundancy situation, his Certificate of Service indicated that he had resigned and that he was targeted as a person and not his position.
27. The Claimant did not produce any evidence that he was instructed to report to a white junior colleague. The Claimant did not place before the Court details of the black employees who were dismissed, and the reasons for the dismissals.
28. The Respondent explained the justification for declaring the Claimant’s position redundant and elevating it to the position of Vice President from Director. The Claimant was requested to apply for the new position. The Claimant did not show how this was meant to target or discriminate against him.
29. The Claimant further asserted discrimination in the terms/words used in his Certificate of Service.
30. The Claimant’s Certificate of Service indicated that:
He left our employment in June 2023 to pursue other interests.
31. The words, in the view of the Court, in their general sense, do not suggest any discrimination. A resignation or a dismissal would all be covered under the terms of leaving employment.
32. The Claimant did not prove discrimination.
Conclusion and Orders
33. Flowing from the above, the Court finds no merit in the Cause, and it is dismissed with costs.
2. The Respondent filed a Response on 29 May 2024, and the Cause was heard on 5 May 2025. The Claimant and a Vice President, People and Culture with the Respondent testified.
3. The Claimant filed his submissions on 10 June 2025 (should have been filed and served before 19 May 2025), and the Respondent on 9 June 2025.
4. The Claimant identified the Issues arising in his submissions as:
(i) Whether the Respondent’s termination of the Claimant’s employment on account of redundancy was fair?
(ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
5. The Respondent saw the Issues as:
(i) Whether the Claimant’s termination of employment on account of redundancy was unlawful?
(ii) Whether the Claimant has established the allegation of discriminatory actions, unfair treatment and unfair labour practices by the Respondent?
(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
6. The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions.
Unfair termination of employment
Procedural fairness
7. The Claimant asserted that the Respondent unfairly terminated his employment on the ground of redundancy on 30 June 2023.
8. According to the Claimant, the Respondent did not serve the requisite notice upon the local Labour Officer, he was not consulted, and no objective criteria were used to select his position for redundancy.
9. The Respondent issued to the Claimant notice of intention to declare redundancy dated 18 April 2023. The notice referred to a meeting held on 14 April 2023 and indicated that the effective date of redundancy would be 30 June 2023. The notice was copied to the local Labour Officer and advised the Clamant that he would be paid earned salary, severance pay, notice pay and accrued leave.
10. The notice further informed the Claimant that the Respondent was open to further discussions.
11. The Claimant raised certain concerns, and the Respondent replied to the concerns on 25 April 2023.
12. Section 40(1) of the Employment Act, 2007 sets out the steps an employer should take before declaring a redundancy.
13. Prior to the notice of redundancy, the Respondent held a meeting with the Claimant on 14 April 2023, after which the notice was issued. The notice gave notice of more than 30 days and it invited the Claimant to further consultations. The Labour Officer acknowledged receipt of the notice.
14. The Claimant raised concerns in writing, and the Respondent addressed the concerns.
15. The Court is satisfied that the Respondent substantially complied with the processes envisaged under section 40(1) of the Employment Act, 2007.
Substantive fairness
16. Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007, place a burden on the employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for termination of employment even in cases of operational requirements.
17. The Claimant, who was serving as Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Director, contended that the Respondent did not use an objective criterion to identify the staff for redundancy and that he was not offered an alternative.
18. The Respondent’s witness testified that the redundancy was influenced by the need to obtain expertise in the area of monitoring and evaluation, operate within the geographic location in East Africa, free time for the Vice President for Impact to focus on fundraising and the need for strong executive leadership.
19. The witness also testified that the Claimant was requested to apply for the new position of Vice President for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning.
20. The Claimant did not apply for the position.
21. An employer has the discretion to organise and reorganise its business model without being hamstrung by Court supervision unless the process and reasons cannot be justified.
22. The Respondent gave reasons for its decision to reorganise, and these included freeing up the time of the Vice President Impact to focus on fundraising and creating the position of a Vice President Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning operating within the East African region.
23. The Claimant was allowed to pitch for the position but he declined.
24. The Court finds, in the circumstances, that the Respondent had valid and fair reasons to declare the position of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Director redundant.
Discrimination
25. The Claimant asserted that the Respondent discriminated against him because he was black.
26. According to the Claimant, the particulars of discrimination were that he was made to report to an employee junior to him, the Respondent had a penchant for dismissing black employees who disagreed with white colleagues, he was warned against disclosing the redundancy situation, his Certificate of Service indicated that he had resigned and that he was targeted as a person and not his position.
27. The Claimant did not produce any evidence that he was instructed to report to a white junior colleague. The Claimant did not place before the Court details of the black employees who were dismissed, and the reasons for the dismissals.
28. The Respondent explained the justification for declaring the Claimant’s position redundant and elevating it to the position of Vice President from Director. The Claimant was requested to apply for the new position. The Claimant did not show how this was meant to target or discriminate against him.
29. The Claimant further asserted discrimination in the terms/words used in his Certificate of Service.
30. The Claimant’s Certificate of Service indicated that:
He left our employment in June 2023 to pursue other interests.
31. The words, in the view of the Court, in their general sense, do not suggest any discrimination. A resignation or a dismissal would all be covered under the terms of leaving employment.
32. The Claimant did not prove discrimination.
Conclusion and Orders
33. Flowing from the above, the Court finds no merit in the Cause, and it is dismissed with costs.