Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELRC 2277 (KLR)

Philip Soita Mayavi v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited [2021] KEELRC 2277 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 January 2021
MNMathews N. Nduma
1,918 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a sugar company's dismissal of an underperforming field assistant because it gave warnings, a chance to improve, and paid all dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed as a field assistant by the respondent sugar company from 1/4/2009, sued on 5/3/2015 challenging the termination of his employment on 23/11/2012 for poor work performance. He sought general damages for the unserved 29 years to retirement, one month's salary in lieu of notice, leave pay for 2015, costs and interest, alleging contravention of Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007. He attributed low cane supply in his zone to competition from Butali Sugar Company, which he said offered farmers better rates and lower transport and input costs. The respondent maintained that the claimant persistently missed cane delivery targets, was issued two show cause letters to both of which he replied, was cautioned on 17/8/2012 and placed on a three-month improvement period, and that his terminal dues - including one month's salary in lieu of notice and 54 days' leave pay - were paid. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was for a valid reason following fair procedure, and whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought. It found the respondent had a genuine grievance, that other employees in comparable positions met their targets, and that the claimant's explanations were not genuine. The process was held fair. The suit was dismissed in its entirety with each party bearing their own costs, the court noting the claimant's services and his having moved on to alternative employment. Judgment was delivered online pursuant to COVID-19 directives with the parties' consent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reason for termination

Holding

The respondent had a valid reason - the claimant's persistent failure to meet cane supply targets, with explanations found not genuine

Reasoning

The court compared the claimant's evidence with that of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and found the respondent had a genuine grievance. Other employees in the same position met their targets (some 81-120 tonnes monthly against the claimant's 9.81 tonnes), disproving the claimant's explanation about competition from Butali Sugar Company and differential transport costs.

p. 3
02

Fairness of termination procedure

Holding

The procedure was fair: two show cause letters, a reply considered, a caution letter, and a 3-month improvement period preceded termination

Reasoning

The claimant received a show cause letter on 13/8/2012, replied, was cautioned on 17/8/2012 and placed on a 3-month improvement grace period. A second notice to show cause issued on 13/11/2012, he responded on 14/11/2012, and the respondent considered his response before terminating on 23/11/2012. This satisfied the fair-process requirement.

p. 3
03

Entitlement to reliefs

Holding

None of the reliefs were available; terminal dues including notice pay and leave pay had been paid and the claimant had moved on

Reasoning

The court found the claimant was paid one month salary in lieu of notice, 54 days leave pay and terminal benefits through Ken-India Insurance, and had obtained alternative employment as an agriculture teacher from 2014. The suit was therefore devoid of merit and was dismissed in its entirety.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer terminates employment for a valid reason under Sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act where the employee persistently fails to meet set performance targets that peers in the same position met, and the employee's explanations are not genuine
  • A fair procedure is satisfied where the employee is given opportunity to respond to show cause letters, is cautioned, and is given a grace/improvement period before termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit by the claimant is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to meet their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 41, 43, 44, 45
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Philip Soita Mayavi v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited [2021] KEELRC 2277 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2277/eng@2021-01-28

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