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 judgment· [2024] KEELRC 717 (KLR)

Mbugua v CMC Motors Limited & another (Cause 2307 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 717 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 March 2024
6,868 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~27 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded an employee the maximum 12 months' salary for unfair termination over poor performance, but he lost claims for Kshs 65 million in commissions and severance pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondents from 1994/1995 and risen to Brand Manager for Mazda after a long tenure promoting the Volkswagen brand, was terminated on 13th June 2017 on grounds of poor performance following a performance improvement plan (PIP). He claimed outstanding commissions of Kshs 65,230,200 for Volkswagen vehicles sold to government, twelve months' compensation for unfair termination, severance pay, remittance of pension, costs and interest. The Respondents denied the commission claim, asserting that government sales were house deals commissioned through their agent Pewin Motors Ltd, and maintained the termination followed a 60-day PIP. The court framed three issues: fairness of termination, entitlement to commissions, and entitlement to severance pay. On fairness, it found no valid and fair reason: no annual appraisals were produced, the Respondents' own witness called the Claimant a good employee, and a redundancy notice issued a month after termination undercut the poor-performance narrative. Procedurally, the PIP was communicated late, its start date contradicted the parties' agreement, and the Claimant was terminated one day after the PIP was extended, without a show cause letter or hearing. Termination was held substantively unjustified and procedurally flawed, hence unfair under section 45. The commission claim failed for want of strict proof, the Claimant having acknowledged commissions were not payable to individuals on government house deals. Severance pay failed as termination preceded the redundancy notice. The court awarded maximum compensation of twelve months' salary (Kshs 2,760,000), subject to statutory deductions, with interest at court rates from judgment, plus costs. The pension claim had been settled by consent dated 25th April 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination on grounds of poor performance was substantively justified

Holding

Not justified - no valid and fair reason was proved

Reasoning

Poor performance is a valid ground under section 44(4)(g) but must be proved under sections 43 and 47(5). The Respondents produced no annual performance appraisals as required by their own manual. The Claimant had served 22 years with sterling performance, the Respondents' witness admitted he was a good employee, and a redundancy notice issued a month after termination showed the company itself was struggling. The court held there was no valid and fair reason.

p. 11
02

Whether the termination was procedurally fair

Holding

Procedurally flawed and unfair under section 45

Reasoning

Section 41 requires explanation of reasons and an opportunity to make representations. The PIP was communicated after its purported start date, the commencement date contradicted the parties' agreement, and although the PIP was extended for 30 days to 30th June 2017, the Claimant was terminated the next day, 13th June 2017. No show cause letter or disciplinary hearing was given. Payment in lieu of notice could not cure the flawed process.

p. 12
03

Whether the Claimant proved entitlement to commissions of Kshs 65,230,200

Holding

Not proved

Reasoning

The Claimant acknowledged that government sales were house deals not attracting individual commission, that Pewin Motors Ltd was the appointed agent and was paid the commission, and that he was not in charge of government sales. His list lacked figures and invoices and he produced no agreement entitling him to the commission. Under section 108 of the Evidence Act and the strict-proof rule for special damages, the claim failed.

p. 12
04

Whether the Claimant was entitled to severance pay

Holding

Not entitled

Reasoning

Severance pay under section 40 of the Employment Act is payable on redundancy. The Claimant was terminated on 13th June 2017 on grounds of poor performance; the redundancy notice came later, in July 2017, after termination. He was accordingly not entitled to severance pay.

p. 12
05

What compensation was appropriate for the unfair termination

Holding

Maximum 12 months' salary, Kshs 2,760,000

Reasoning

Considering the Claimant's 22 years of service, his sterling performance on the Volkswagen brand, and the hurried manner in which he was pushed out without his views being heard, the court found this a proper case for the maximum award of twelve months' gross salary under section 49 of the Employment Act, noting he had already received one month's salary in lieu of notice among his terminal dues.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Where poor performance is the reason for termination, the employer bears a high level of proof and must show a policy or practice for measuring performance
  • Termination for poor performance while the employee is still on an extended performance improvement plan, without a show cause letter or disciplinary hearing, is procedurally flawed and unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act
  • A claimant alleging entitlement to commission must specifically plead and strictly prove it, the burden lying on him under section 108 of the Evidence Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Unpaid commission claim rejected
  2. 2.Severance pay claim rejected
  3. 3.Respondent to pay 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 230,000 per month, totalling Kshs 2,760,000
  4. 4.Award subject to statutory deductions but to attract interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
  5. 5.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbugua v CMC Motors Limited & another (Cause 2307 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/717/eng@2024-03-14

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