Thuo v Samba Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause 596 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 2347 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that even poor performance cannot justify firing an employee without first giving them notice of the reasons and a chance to be heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether the remedies sought should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was unfair
The termination was unlawful and unfair because the respondent did not accord the claimant a hearing or follow due process before terminating him for alleged poor performance
Section 41 of the Employment Act mandates notice stating the grounds and a fair chance for the employee to make representations in the presence of a fellow employee of choice. The respondent terminated the claimant for alleged indolence and failure to meet targets without any hearing. A contract clause permitting termination for failure to meet targets cannot oust these statutory requirements, and termination at will is regulated in law. The court found unfair termination under sections 45 and 49.
What remedies should issue
Compensation of four months' gross salary (Kshs. 150,408), a declaration of unfair termination, a certificate of service, and costs; other dues claims refused
Having worked one year and three months, compensation equivalent to four months' gross salary at Kshs. 37,602 was found appropriate. Notice pay had already been deposited, leave pay paid, severance pay inapplicable absent redundancy, and the difference-pay claim lacked basis. A certificate of service is mandatory under section 51.
Legal principles established
#- An employee must be accorded a hearing before termination of employment, even for gross misconduct or poor performance, as required by section 41 of the Employment Act
- A contractual clause allowing termination at will for failure to meet targets is regulated by the statutory requirements of notice, hearing and reasons under sections 41, 43 and 44 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that employment terminated unfairly
- 2.Compensation awarded at Kshs. 150,408
- 3.A certificate of service shall issue in terms of section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 44, 45, 49 and 51 applied)
Relief refused
#Salary for May 2016 (unpaid balance) and any further days worked
Terminal dues paid covered 8 days worked in May 2016 and any shortfall is addressed in the awarded compensation
Severance pay of Kshs. 69,375
Severance pay applies to redundancy, which was not the case here
Leave pay of Kshs. 15,602
Leave pay had already been allocated and paid by the respondent
Entitlement difference in tabulation of Kshs. 11,244
The claim lacked good basis; the multiplier of 8 years used in submissions was factually wrong as the claimant worked 1 year and 3 months
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant ('The claim being successful, the claimant is hereby awarded costs.')
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The basic minimum is that the employee should be accorded a hearing at the shop floor before his employment is terminated for whatever reasons even where such relates to gross misconduct, which is not the case here.
the policy giving rise to termination of employment at will has since been regulated in law.
Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant against the respondent in the following terms;
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the date of termination/notice: the claim is that employment was terminated on 18 May 2016 without notice, while the court states the notice took effect earlier
The judgment refers to a dismissal letter dated 8 May 2016 while the claimant testified the letter of summary dismissal was served on 12 June 2016, and other passages refer to 18 May 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thuo v Samba Pharmaceuticals Limited (Cause 596 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 2347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2347/eng@2023-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.