By Moffat Atancha, Associate Advocate, MMW Advocates LLP.
Declared redundant today. The job was re-advertised two months later. For Grace Mburu, that sequence wasn’t just suspicious, but it was worth Kshs. 3,498,954.00 in court.
The Case in Brief
Grace Mburu joined Standard Chartered Bank in 2015 as Manager, Financial Crime Compliance, and quickly rose to Principal Financial Crime Compliance. In September 2019, she was told her role would be made redundant as part of a departmental restructure.
Her employment was terminated in October 2019, and she received statutory dues, including severance pay.
But here’s the twist: by December 2019, barely two months later, the Bank advertised a “Senior Manager, CFCC” position with striking similarities to her former role, including the same reporting line.
Grace believed the redundancy was just an excuse to push her out, disguised as part of a restructuring. The Bank, on the other hand, insisted it was a genuine reorganisation and said she had been offered a lower-grade role, with the same salary, which she turned down.
The Court’s Findings
Justice Linet Ndolo was not persuaded by the Bank’s explanation, noting that it was difficult to justify abolishing a position only to reinstate it within two months. She found that the purported differences between the old and new roles were insignificant, as the job descriptions revealed striking similarities. Further, she observed that offering Grace a lower-grade role, given her career progression in a specialised field, was not a reasonable alternative. The Court ultimately concluded that there was no genuine redundancy and that the Bank’s actions carried “a whiff of mala fides.”
The Award
The Court awarded Grace Kshs. 3,498,954.00, equivalent to six months’ salary, as compensation for unlawful and unfair termination, together with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, and the costs of the case. The award was moderated in light of the fact that she had already received all her statutory and contractual dues at the time of termination
What This Means For Employers
This case is a reminder that:
- Labelling is not enough – Calling a termination “redundancy” won’t protect you if the facts say otherwise.
- Timing matters – Advertising a similar role shortly after a redundancy can undermine your defence entirely.
- Consultation must be genuine – Section 40 of the Employment Act requires meaningful engagement, not a tick-box exercise.
- Career progression counts – Offering a lower position may not be a fair alternative if it effectively demotes the employee.
What This Means For Employees
If you are declared redundant:
- Check the facts – If your role, or a substantially similar one, is re-advertised soon after, that could be evidence of unfair termination.
- Know your rights – Section 40 sets out procedural safeguards: proper notice, objective selection, and payment of statutory dues.
- Career impact is relevant – Courts may consider whether alternatives offered protect your professional growth, not just your salary.
- Act promptly – There are time limits for bringing claims, so seek legal advice quickly.
For employers, a redundancy must be authentic, transparent, and fully compliant with legal procedures. For employees, a redundancy notice does not automatically make the process lawful, as courts will examine the substance of the situation rather than the label attached to it.