Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELRC 138 (KLR)

Linet Bosibori Moruri v Kisii Bottlers Limited [2018] KEELRC 138 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 December 2018
708 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a retail manager Kshs.510,000 after finding his dismissal for 'poor performance' had no factual basis, so employers must document performance claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent in May 2013 as a merchandiser and later retail manager of the Homa Bay Branch, sued on 22nd August 2017 seeking compensation for unlawful termination of employment and terminal benefits. His employment was terminated on 22nd March 2017 allegedly for poor work performance. The Respondent entered appearance through the Federation of Kenya Employers but never filed a statement of defence. An application for adjournment to enable filing of a Memorandum of Response was opposed and refused, and the matter proceeded to formal proof. The Claimant testified that his performance appraisals scored him 70% in October 2016 and 74% in January 2017 and produced sales analysis documents showing his region outperformed others, leaving no basis for the allegations of underperformance. The claim was unopposed and the court found the testimony credible and unrebutted. The court held that the termination was not for a valid reason and violated sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, entitling the Claimant to compensation under section 49(1)(c) and (4). Considering his monthly salary of Kshs.70,000 and four years of diligent service, the court awarded five months' salary (Kshs.350,000) as compensation, Kshs.70,000 in lieu of notice, and Kshs.90,000 in salary arrears, a total of Kshs.510,000. Claims for overtime and service gratuity were dismissed for lack of merit. Interest was awarded on the compensation from judgment and on the notice pay and arrears from filing. The Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of termination for poor work performance

Holding

The allegations of poor performance had no basis; termination was not for a valid reason and violated sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The Claimant, who was retail manager of the Homa Bay Branch, testified that appraisals in October 2016 and January 2017 scored him at 70% and 74% respectively, and produced sales analysis documents showing his region performed better than others. The claim was unopposed, the Respondent having filed no defence, and there was no evidence to rebut the Claimant's credible testimony. The court therefore found the allegations of underperformance baseless and the termination unfair.

p. 1
02

Quantum of compensation and terminal dues

Holding

Five months' salary as compensation (Kshs.350,000), one month's notice pay (Kshs.70,000) and salary arrears of Kshs.90,000 awarded; overtime and gratuity claims dismissed

Reasoning

In assessing compensation under section 49, the court considered that the Claimant earned Kshs.70,000 per month, had served diligently for four years, received no notice or notice pay, and was unpaid for December 2016, January 2017 and March 2017. The claims for overtime and service gratuity failed for lack of merit. Interest was granted on the compensation from judgment and on the other awards from filing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination without a valid reason violates sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act and entitles the employee to compensation under section 49(1)(c) and (4)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kshs.350,000 being equivalent of 5 months salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination
  2. 2.Kshs.70,000 in lieu of one month notice
  3. 3.Kshs.90,000 salary arrears
  4. 4.Total award Kshs.510,000
  5. 5.Interest on the compensation award at court rates from date of judgment; interest on notice pay and arrears from date of filing suit till payment in full
  6. 6.Respondent to pay costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 43
  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 49(1)(c) and (4)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; Employment Act, sections 43, 45 and 49

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Linet Bosibori Moruri v Kisii Bottlers Limited [2018] KEELRC 138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/138/eng@2018-12-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.