Murage v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 345 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 14 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee for poor performance without a proper process and evidence is unfair, even if the employee signed a settlement certificate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in termination for poor performance under section 41 of the Employment Act
Termination was unfair because the Claimant was not invited to a formal disciplinary hearing and was placed on the PIP without his involvement
The court noted the respondent failed to inform the claimant of a disciplinary meeting despite its own letter of July 9, 2018 indicating that failure to improve could lead to a disciplinary hearing. Section 41(1) requires an explanation of reasons for termination in the presence of a fellow employee or shop floor union representative of the employee's choice. This was not done, rendering the termination procedurally unfair.
Employer's burden of proof where termination is based on poor performance
The employer failed to produce concrete evidence of measurement tools and feedback on progress, and the sudden fall from 'excellent' to 'moderate' ratings was unexplained
Citing Jane Samba Mukala, the court emphasized that where poor performance is the reason for termination, the employer bears a high level of proof and must show it had a policy or practice for measuring performance and measures taken to address poor performance. The court was not presented with evidence of measurement tools or feedback on progress during the PIP period.
Effect of a discharge voucher/clearance certificate on a claim for unfair termination
The clearance certificate did not absolve the employer; it was signed one and a half months after termination under circumstances not indicative of voluntary waiver, and the employee had not received an itemized breakdown of dues
Following De La Rue v David Opondo, the court held that a discharge voucher does not absolve an employer from statutory obligations. The document was titled 'clearance certificate', was signed almost two months after termination, and the claimant had repeatedly asked for a breakdown of the Kshs 261,802 paid without receiving one, showing he was not waiving claims.
Legal principles established
#- A discharge voucher (clearance certificate) does not absolve an employer from statutory obligations or bar a court from investigating alleged unfair termination, where the circumstances show the employee was desperate for dues
- An employer terminating for poor performance must inform the employee of areas of poor performance, place him on a participatory PIP, and invite him to a disciplinary hearing in compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant is awarded 5 months equivalent of salary being Kshs 1,249,165/= only
- 2.Costs awarded to the claimant
- 3.Interest at court rates from date of judgment until final payment
- 4.The certificate of service should be issued to the claimant within 14 days from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 45, 49, 51); Employment and Labour Relations Court first-instance jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kamuti v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E684 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 845 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 845 (KLR)14 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murage v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 345 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 14 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 345 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/14/eng@2023-01-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.