Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 263 of 2020· [2024] KEELRC 2112 (KLR)

Kinyanjui v HF Insurance Agency Limited (Cause 263 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2112 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 July 2024
2,709 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld an employer's right to fire a poorly performing executive who missed agreed targets despite a fair performance improvement process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as Head of Business Development from 5th January 2016, challenged his termination on 20th March 2020 on grounds of poor performance. He sought reinstatement, a declaration that the termination was illegal and unlawful, damages, exemplary damages, costs and interest, contending that he had a sham disciplinary hearing, that no performance-based contract existed, and that the Respondent and its parent HF Group Limited were seeking to cut salary costs. The Respondent maintained that the Claimant consistently missed agreed targets: a mid-2019 review yielded 9.9 points (Below Target), with actual achievement of Kshs 50,072,867/= against Kshs 81,569,940/=; after a four-month Performance Improvement Plan, he achieved Kshs 55,538,704/= against Kshs 77,322,000/=. He was given a show cause notice, a disciplinary hearing on 9th March 2020, and an unsuccessful internal appeal. The Claimant did not file written submissions. The Court framed three issues: justifiable cause, fair procedure, and entitlement to reliefs. Applying Sections 43, 45 and 41 of the Employment Act, the Court found the figure-based performance evaluations objective and the reason for termination valid, and held the disciplinary process procedurally fair since the Claimant was notified of the allegations and heard. The termination was found neither unfair nor unlawful, the claim was dismissed in its entirety, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Justifiable cause for termination on grounds of poor performance

Holding

Respondent proved justified cause; performance targets were objective, figure-based, and Claimant consistently fell below target including after PIP

Reasoning

Sections 43 and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act required the employer to prove valid reasons. The Claimant had agreed performance targets of Kshs 163,139,880/= in gross premiums; his actual achievement of Kshs 50,072,867/= at mid-year and Kshs 55,538,704/= after the four-month PIP translated to Below Target ratings. His complaint that targets were unrealistic was raised late and never communicated to supervisors beforehand.

p. 5
02

Fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

Procedure was fair; Claimant received a show cause notice, responded, and was heard by a disciplinary panel

Reasoning

Section 41 requires notification of reasons, opportunity to make representations and accompaniment by a colleague or union representative. The Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded to it, attended the disciplinary hearing of 9th March 2020 and ventilated his case, with responses captured in minutes. His assertion that the hearing was a sham was unsupported by particulars. An internal appeal was also heard and dismissed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove a valid and fair reason related to conduct, capacity, compatibility or operational requirements to justify termination
  • An employer must show the employee was notified of allegations and given an opportunity to be heard before termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Claim in its entirety
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSections 41, 43, 45(2)(a), (b), (c)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (1)

  • Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge Limited
    Industrial Cause Number 823 of 2010 (2010) LLR 255 (ICK) (September 2013)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, Sections 41, 43 and 45)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kinyanjui v HF Insurance Agency Limited (Cause 263 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2112 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 263 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2112/eng@2024-07-26

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