A Nairobi Employment Court has handed a bittersweet victory to a former Human Resources Manager, awarding her one months salary as compensation after ruling that her dismissal was procedurally flawed, despite valid operational reasons.

Justice Stephen Radido’s ruling in the case of Carolyne Karuru versus Jarvis Products Kenya Ltd serves as a cautionary tale for corporate Kenya: having a good reason to fire someone is not enough; you must also follow the law to the letter. Karuru, who was let go in May 2024 during a company restructuring, had sued for millions, alleging unfair termination and unpaid dues.

The "Office Manager" Dispute

At the heart of the dispute was Karurus role. Hired in February 2023 earning Ksh 92,200, her salary was doubled to Ksh 184,400 in October of the same year. Karuru argued this reflected a promotion to "Office Manager," a position she claimed was distinct and not subject to redundancy. The company countered that the raise was merely for added duties within her existing HR role and that no new contract was ever issued.

The court sided largely with the employer on the substance of the redundancy. Justice Radido found that Jarvis Products had valid grounds to declare the position redundant due to business reorganization. However, the judge noted a critical failure in the process: the company had breached the strict notice timelines required by the Employment Act.

• The Verdict: The court ruled the dismissal "procedurally unfair" solely due to the notice period lapse.
• The Award: Karuru was awarded Ksh 184,400—equivalent to one month’s gross salary.
• The Dismissal: Her other claims, including Ksh 78,754 for alleged underpaid severance and service pay, were dismissed for lack of merit.

A Lesson for HR Departments

The judgment reinforces the sanctity of section 40 of the Employment Act, which outlines the mandatory steps for redundancy. Even when a company is bleeding cash or restructuring for survival, skipping a single statutory step—like a notice letter date—can open the door to litigation.

For Karuru, the ruling is a moral vindication but a financial disappointment compared to her initial demands. For employers, it is a stark reminder that in the corridors of justice, process is just as important as substance.