Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in excerpt (Statement of Claim filed 20th August 2018)· [2024] KEELRC 212 (KLR)

Mwangi v Red Lands Roses Limited (Cause 1318 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 212 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 February 2024
4,185 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an employer unfairly fired an accountant over a flawed performance appraisal and denied him a proper hearing, awarding six months' salary.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed from 30th July 2013 as a Senior Accountant Manager and later promoted to Manager in the Finance Department, was terminated effective 31st January 2018 on grounds of poor performance following a performance appraisal of 25th January 2018 in which he scored 48.6%. He claimed the appraisal was conducted by the Human Resource Manager and Executive Director instead of his usual supervisors, and that he was not heard before termination. He sought compensatory damages of Kshs 1,676,760/=, a Certificate of Service, costs and interest. The Respondent defended the termination as justified by consistent poor performance, willful neglect of duty, warning letters and a show-cause process answered in writing. The court framed three issues: substantive justification, procedural fairness, and reliefs. On substance, it found the appraisal irregular because it was undertaken by persons not directly responsible for the Claimant's supervision, contrary to the Respondent's own Performance Management Policy; the Chief Accountant's endorsement could not cure this, so the termination was not substantively justified. On process, the court held that Section 41 of the Employment Act contemplates an oral hearing, following the Court of Appeal in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui, and that the exchange of letters did not satisfy the minimum standards of fair procedure, particularly where the Claimant expressly requested a hearing that was ignored. Judgment was entered for the Claimant: compensatory damages of Kshs 834,000.00 (six months' gross salary), interest at court rates from judgment, costs of the suit, and a Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) of the Employment Act.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantive justification for termination for poor performance

Holding

Termination not substantively justified because the appraisal flowed from an irregular process conducted by persons not responsible for the Claimant's supervision

Reasoning

Section 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act require the employer to prove a valid and fair reason. Although the Claimant scored 48.6% and did not object to the appraisal areas in his response to the show cause letter, the appraisal was conducted by the Executive Director and Human Resource Manager contrary to the Respondent's own Performance Management Policy, which vests appraisal in directly supervising managers. The Chief Accountant's mere endorsement could not cure the irregularity.

02

Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

Termination procedurally unfair as no oral hearing was held despite the Claimant's request

Reasoning

Section 41(1) entitles an employee to have a colleague or union representative present during the explanation, which can only be achieved through an oral hearing. Following the Court of Appeal in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui, the court held that the exchange of letters between employer and employee does not satisfy the minimum standards of fair procedure under Section 41 where the employee faces loss of career and livelihood. The Claimant's request to discuss the appraisal with his supervisors was ignored.

p. 8
03

Reliefs

Holding

Compensatory damages of six months' gross salary awarded, plus interest, costs and a Certificate of Service

Reasoning

Having found the termination substantively unjustified and procedurally unfair, the court exercised discretion under Section 49 of the Employment Act, taking into account the length of the employment relationship and the manner of termination, to award the equivalent of six months' gross salary rather than the twelve months claimed. A Certificate of Service follows as the employment relationship is admitted.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An appraisal conducted by persons not directly responsible for the employee's supervision is irregular and cannot found a valid reason for termination
  • Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an oral hearing before termination on grounds of poor performance; an exchange of letters does not suffice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 834,000.00 being equivalent to six (6) months of gross salary
  2. 2.Interest on the damages at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
  4. 4.Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwangi v Red Lands Roses Limited (Cause 1318 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in excerpt (Statement of Claim filed 20th August 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/212/eng@2024-02-09

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