Chisom v Taxify Kenya Limited (Cause 357 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 1959 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a ride-hailing company unfairly fired its Supply Team Lead, awarding him millions because it fired him first and found reasons later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive and procedural fairness of termination
Termination was unfair: no evidence of gross misconduct or poor performance, and the disciplinary process was a pre-determined sanitising exercise
The court found no evidence supporting poor performance or breach of confidentiality – the data sharing was done by another employee on the respondent's own instructions and for business purposes. The sequence of show cause letters and the hurried hearing after suspension showed the decision was made first and reasons sought later, denying the claimant adequate preparation, contrary to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Entitlement to remedies
6 months' compensation, one month's notice pay and 12 months' house allowance at 15% awarded; severance, leave and shares refused
Exercising discretion under section 49, the court limited compensation to six months. Notice pay was due as none was given. A consolidated gross salary implies no house allowance was paid, but the claim was time-limited to one year. Leave days and shares failed for want of proof; severance failed as the claimant was not declared redundant.
Counterclaim (breach of Trust and Confidence Agreement, confidentiality, defamation)
Counterclaim dismissed as unproved
The claimant denied signing the Trust and Confidence Agreement; the confidentiality breach was attributed to another employee acting on the respondent's instructions for business purposes under an NDA, and no evidence of defamation was tendered. The counterclaim therefore failed on the evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A disciplinary process conducted after an employer has already made up its mind to terminate is a sanitising exercise and procedurally unfair
- An employer alleging poor performance must produce evidence of the poor performance and of measures taken to address it
- Severance pay under section 40(1)(g) of the Employment Act is a redundancy benefit and is unavailable to an employee who was terminated for misconduct
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Claimant's termination was unfair and unjust
- 2.Six months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination being Kshs. 2,839,080/-
- 3.One month's salary in lieu of notice – Kshs. 473,180/-
- 4.Unpaid house allowance at 15% of basic pay for 12 months being Kshs. 851,724/-
- 5.Interest on the sums in (b), (c) and (d) at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 6.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 7.Dismissal of the respondent's counterclaim with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute (Employment Act, 2007); claimant also invoked section 2 of the Contracts in Restraint of Trade Act, Cap 24 to challenge the counterclaim's jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chisom v Taxify Kenya Limited (Cause 357 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 1959 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 357 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1959/eng@2023-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.