Ruth Nyamokami v Habo Group of Companies [2021] KEELRC 2204 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer who fires an employee for poor performance without proof of warnings, appraisals or improvement chances must pay heavy compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment on account of poor performance was lawful
The termination was without valid reason and in violation of due procedure; the Respondent led no evidence of prior notice of poor performance, performance benchmarks or appraisals.
Poor performance is a recognized ground for termination but must be proved. Following Jane Samba Mukala v Oltukai Lodge Limited, an employer must show the employee knew the expected performance standards, that shortcomings were pointed out, and that she was given a reasonable opportunity to improve. Apart from the termination letter itself, no prior notice, benchmark or appraisal was laid before the Court, so the allegation was unsubstantiated.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the terminal dues tabulated in the terminal benefits form
The terminal dues (notice, October days, in-house savings, leave, severance and pension) were due and payable; the claim that they had been paid was unsupported.
The Respondent itself listed the final dues in the termination letter and did not contest the terminal benefits form tabulating the amounts. Its late suggestion that the dues had been paid and liability discharged was unsubstantiated; documentary evidence of payment, which would be in the Respondent's custody, was not tendered. The Court therefore found the benefits due and payable and awarded them as claimed.
The appropriate compensation for unlawful termination
Twelve months' gross salary (Kshs. 660,000) was awarded as compensation for unlawful termination.
In exercising the discretion to award compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act, the Court considered the Claimant's long service of 11 years and 7 months and the Respondent's unlawful conduct in terminating the employment relationship. A full twelve months' salary was deemed appropriate compensation for the summary and unjustified loss of employment.
Legal principles established
#- An employer alleging poor performance must prove that the employee was made aware of expected performance standards, that shortcomings were pointed out, and that a reasonable opportunity to improve was given.
- A bare allegation of poor performance in a termination letter, unsupported by benchmarks, appraisals or prior warnings, does not constitute a valid reason for termination.
- A party alleging that terminal dues were paid bears the burden of producing documentary evidence of payment.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 1,373,466 (12 months' salary compensation Kshs. 660,000; 1 month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs. 55,000; severance pay for 11 years Kshs. 302,500; SACCO dues Kshs. 64,100; in-house savings/pension Kshs. 46,200; leave earned but not taken 118 days Kshs. 216,333; 16 days worked in October 2015 Kshs. 29,333)
- 2.The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.The Respondent to bear the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (claim for unlawful termination and terminal dues)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruth Nyamokami v Habo Group of Companies [2021] KEELRC 2204 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2204/eng@2021-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.