Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim filed 14th February 2023· [2023] KEELRC 3322 (KLR)

Kibe v Kibo Africa Limited (Cause E107 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3322 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 December 2023
3,856 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that a probation ends by law after three months unless both employer and employee agree in writing to extend it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Marketing and Communication Executive with effect from 2nd June 2022 on a 90-day probation. She was terminated by letter dated 2nd November 2022 on grounds of poor performance and poor communication, without a hearing. The matter proceeded by way of documentary evidence under Rule 21 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 after the Respondent repeatedly failed to attend court and filed no submissions or affidavit evidence. The court framed three issues: whether the appointment was confirmed by operation of law, whether the termination was unfair and unlawful, and entitlement to reliefs. On the first issue, the court held that any extension of probation requires the employee's agreement under Section 42(2) of the Employment Act; no mutuality was proved, so the Claimant stood confirmed by operation of law upon lapse of the three-month probation. On substantive fairness, the Respondent failed its evidentiary burden under Sections 43 and 45(2): no targets were set, the performance assessment was general and unsupported by evidence, and the poor communication allegation lacked particulars. On procedural fairness, there was no evidence the Claimant was notified or heard as required by Section 41. The court declared the summary dismissal unfair and unlawful and awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 130,000) and compensatory damages of three months' gross salary (Kshs 390,000), totaling Kshs 520,000, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment, costs of the suit, and a certificate of service to issue within 30 days. Judgment dated 8th December 2023, delivered virtually by Stella Rutto, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant's probation was validly extended

Holding

The purported extension was not proved; there was no evidence of mutuality as required by Section 42(2), so the Claimant was confirmed by operation of law upon lapse of the 3-month probation

Reasoning

Section 42(2) requires an extension of probation to be agreed with the employee. Although the termination letter asserted an extension had been recommended and acknowledged, no evidence showed the Claimant agreed in terms of the section. The contract clause itself required written notification of any extension, which was absent. Following Oloo and Onaya-Odeck, the lapse inured to the employee's benefit and employment was confirmed by operation of law.

p. 5
02

Whether the termination was substantively fair

Holding

No - the Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason; performance assessment was not objective as no targets were set, and the allegations of poor performance and poor communication were general and unsubstantiated

Reasoning

The employer produced no evidence of set targets or deliverables against which performance could objectively be measured. The line manager's assessment was too general and was not backed by evidence. No measures to address any alleged underperformance were shown, and the poor communication allegation lacked particulars. The Respondent thus failed its evidentiary burden under Sections 43 and 45(2)(a) and (b).

p. 7
03

Whether the termination was procedurally fair

Holding

No - the Claimant was not notified of the intended termination or given an opportunity to make representations as required by Section 41

Reasoning

Section 41 requires an employer to notify an employee of the intended termination, the reasons thereof, and accord a hearing. There was no evidence the Claimant was heard before the decision to dismiss. Following Jane Samba Mukala, an employee facing termination for poor performance must be called and allowed to defend themselves or address weaknesses. Non-compliance rendered the termination procedurally unfair and unlawful.

p. 7
04

Reliefs entitlement

Holding

One month's salary in lieu of notice and three months' gross salary as compensatory damages, plus costs, interest and a certificate of service

Reasoning

Having found the termination substantively and procedurally unfair, the court exercised discretion under the Employment Act to award notice pay and compensatory damages, factoring in the short length of the employment relationship and the circumstances of termination, and directed issuance of a certificate of service under Section 51(1).

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An extension of a probationary period must be mutually agreed upon by both the employer and the employee under Section 42(2) of the Employment Act
  • Where a probationary period lapses without extension agreed with the employee, the employee is confirmed by operation of law
  • An employer bears the evidentiary burden of proving both substantive fairness (valid reason) and procedural fairness for a termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Claimant's summary dismissal from employment was unfair and unlawful
  2. 2.Award of Kshs 130,000.00 being one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice
  3. 3.Award of compensatory damages of Kshs 390,000.00 being equivalent to three (3) months of gross salary
  4. 4.Total award of Kshs 520,000.00
  5. 5.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
  7. 7.Certificate of service to issue within 30 days of the judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 42(2)
  • Employment ActSection 43
  • Employment ActSection 45(2)
  • Employment ActSections 35, 40, 44, 51(1)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 21
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48

Cases cited (6)

  • Stephen Were vs Wamuti Distributors Limited
    (2020) eKLR
  • Narry Philemons Onaya-Odek vs Technical University of Africa (Formerly, the Kenya Polytechnic University College)
    (2017) eKLR
  • Daniel Mutuku Njuguna vs Kenya Institute of Mass Communication
    (2021) eKLR
  • Monica Munira Kibuchi & 6 Others vs Mount Kenya University; Attorney General (Interested Party)
    (2021) eKLR
  • James O Oloo vs Tana and Athi River Development Authority
    [2016] eKLR
  • Jane Samba Mukala vs Ol Tukai Lodge Limited
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kibe v Kibo Africa Limited (Cause E107 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3322 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Memorandum of Claim filed 14th February 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3322/eng@2023-12-08

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