Redundancy or Injustice? A Landmark Judgment on Employment Rights in Kenya

Some workplace disputes are about small misunderstandings. Others reveal deep cracks in how people are treated; what they’re paid, how they’re valued, and whether the rules are truly fair for everyone.

The case of Ogila v Dawa Life Sciences Limited [2025] KEELRC 1144 (KLR),  is one of the latter. It tells the story of a hardworking manager who did everything right, took on extra responsibilities, led with excellence, even won awards, only to be underpaid, sidelined, and eventually let go. He wasn’t just fighting for a better salary or fair treatment. He was challenging a system that quietly accepted inequality as normal.

This case asks a powerful question: In Kenya’s workplaces, do the principles of fairness and equality really stand up when tested?

The Facts

Tom Oduor Ogila, a man whose resume bore the weight of industry and distinction, was employed by Dawa Life Sciences Limited as a Production Development Manager in 2015. He would go on to shoulder the role of Production Manager, initially in an acting capacity and later confirmed, but astonishingly, without an equitable adjustment in salary.

His diligence was never in dispute. He was, in fact, recognized as the best manager in 2018. Yet, while his output soared, his remuneration languished. His predecessor, an Indian national, earned Kshs. 509,829 monthly. Ogila, a Kenyan citizen in the same position, earned far less; initially Kshs. 253,000, later Kshs. 350,000 after a grudging increment. Notably, internal correspondence admitted he was the "lowest-paid senior manager."

In 2022, he was declared redundant, allegedly due to structural changes, yet his position was soon rebranded and a replacement hired at over Ksh. 1,200,000/- monthly. Thus came his legal odyssey, seeking justice for wrongful dismissal, discriminatory pay, and procedural violations.

Legal Issues

Three principal legal issues emerged:

1. Whether the Claimant’s termination from employment was unfair and unlawful;

2. Whether the Respondent breached the Claimant’s right to equality and freedom from discrimination;

3. Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought.

These issues were not confined to narrow interpretations of employment law but resonated with deeper constitutional imperatives under Article 27 (equality and freedom from discrimination) and the statutory directives of Sections 5 and 10 of the Employment Act.

The Court’s Analysis

With surgical precision, the learned Lady Justice Stella Rutto dissected the facade of corporate explanations. She acknowledged the validity of the redundancy in form but not in execution. Though Dawa Life Sciences did restructure and eliminate Ogila’s position, the procedural substratum was flawed. Notice periods were truncated, consultations were not meaningful, and the Labour Office was served incomplete information.

Most damning, however, was the discrimination in remuneration. The Court found that Ogila had been treated less favourably than his peers with no justifiable basis; an affront to Article 27(5) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act. It mattered not that he accepted his contract; what mattered was that the employer had a statutory duty to ensure fairness and non-discrimination.

Justice Rutto, invoking the Court of Appeal decision in Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd & another v Gladys Muthoni & 20 others [2018] KECA 718 (KLR) and the Supreme Court's decision in Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd  [2021] KESC 12 (KLR) held that failure to justify such differential treatment amounted to unlawful discrimination. Her judgment gave life to the often-ignored truth that consent to injustice under duress or imbalance is not true consent.

Implications: A Landmark for the Modern Workplace

The judgment in Ogila is more than a legal resolution; it is a call to recalibrate the ethical compass of employment relations in Kenya and beyond. It etches in bold ink the principle that an employer’s discretion is not absolute; it must be exercised within the bounds of equity, accountability, and constitutional fidelity.

1. Employers 

This judgment sends an unequivocal message: the architecture of corporate restructuring cannot be used as a veneer to veil discrimination or to circumvent statutory obligations. Redundancy, that often-invoked mechanism of modern capitalism, must no longer be weaponized as a tool of convenience. Employers are now on judicial notice: if you choose to alter the fates of livelihoods under the pretext of financial exigency, you must first ensure that your processes are transparent, your consultations genuine, and your intentions untainted by bias.

The Court’s insistence on procedural integrity under Section 40 of the Employment Act raises the standard for what qualifies as lawful redundancy. The days of perfunctory notices and backdated correspondence are numbered. An employer who disregards consultation or delivers notice with all the subtlety of a guillotine blade will find no refuge in the courtroom.

Equally consequential is the Court’s affirmation that equal pay for equal work is not a slogan; it is a legal imperative. The judgment breathes meaning into Article 27(5) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act, holding that compensation disparity among employees of equal standing must be justifiable, measurable, and rational.

2. Employees,

For employees who have endured silent indignities under the yoke of discriminatory policies, this judgment is a vindication. It affirms that the acceptance of unequal terms under economic duress does not forfeit one’s constitutional protections. It declares that silence under inequality does not equate to consent, and that the courts will not be complicit in upholding contracts that enshrine injustice.

Perhaps most significantly, it reaffirms that the Constitution walks into every workplace, sits beside every employee, and cannot be barred by corporate doors.

Conclusion

The Ogila judgment proclaimed that the workplace is not a realm divorced from the values of justice and fairness. It declared that every contract, every policy, every decision made in a boardroom must withstand the scrutiny of the Constitution and the demands of decency.

The Court unveiled the law not as a distant abstraction, but as a living force. In doing so, it reclaimed the law as a citadel for the voiceless, a redoubt for those who labour in the shadows and are paid in indignity.

Some judgments interpret the law; this one reasserts its conscience.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances and legal questions through info@mmorlaw.com.