Iriga v Gold Crown Beverages (Kenya) Limited (Cause 450 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a manager's unfair dismissal claim, ruling his employer lawfully terminated him for missed performance targets, with no damages awarded.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's termination was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was lawful; the Respondent's case was more probable on the balance of probabilities.
The Claimant relied on Kenfreight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti and Section 47(5) of the Employment Act on burden of proof. The Respondent contended the dismissal was for consistently missed performance targets, that it treated the termination as normal termination and paid salary in lieu of notice and service pay. On the evidence, the court found the Respondent's case the more probable and held the termination lawful.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the refund claimed and interest on the unlawful deductions
No; the deductions were contractually permitted and the claim failed with the main claim.
The Respondent relied on Section 19(1)(h) of the Employment Act permitting wage deductions on account of loans, noting the deductions were contractual and unprotested. It further argued, citing New Tyres Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, that interest predating suit required a contractual stipulation. The court found the Claimant disentitled upon losing the unfair termination claim.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the damages claimed and costs
The claim was dismissed in its entirety with each party bearing their own costs.
Having failed to establish unlawful termination, the Claimant could not sustain the damages claim. The court, in its disposition, dismissed the claim and declined to award costs to either side, directing that each party bear their own costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must demonstrate that the reason for termination is valid and fair and that a fair procedure was followed; the employee's burden is limited to asserting that unfair termination occurred (as per Kenfreight (E.A) Limited v Benson K. Nguti, cited).
- Interest claimed prior to the date of suit is a matter of substantive law and may only be claimed on the basis of a contractual stipulation (as per New Tyres Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, cited).
- The court determines the competing cases of the parties on a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.Claim dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41(1), 44(3), 47(5) and 49(4) cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Iriga v Gold Crown Beverages (Kenya) Limited (Cause 450 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 450 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2739/eng@2023-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.