Ogechi v Almasi Beverages Limited (Cause 1441 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 563 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld Coca-Cola's dismissal of a finance manager for poor performance because the employer documented problems, offered improvement plans, and followed procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant for poor performance was procedurally fair
The termination was procedurally fair - the Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded to it, and appeared before a disciplinary committee
The court found the Claimant was placed on a PIP founded on an existing appraisal, was twice placed on PIP, was appraised for three consecutive years with no improvement, and never appealed the appraisal results despite an appeal mechanism existing in the HR Manual. She was issued a show cause letter, responded, and attended a disciplinary hearing where she was advised she could bring a representative but chose not to. The court therefore could not fault the procedure.
Whether the termination was substantively fair and justified
The termination was substantively fair - continued poor performance over three years, measured through appraisals and two PIPs, was reasonable ground to dismiss
Applying the reasonableness test from British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift and the principles in Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge, the court held the Respondent discharged its burden under Sections 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act. The employer had put in place a performance policy, set expectations through appraisals, allowed three years for improvement, and gave the Claimant every opportunity to improve, which she did not take.
Whether the PIP was improperly initiated without the involvement of the Claimant's immediate supervisor
The court found no basis to conclude the PIP was unfounded, since there was already a previous appraisal on which a PIP could be founded
The Claimant argued the PIP was flawed because her line manager (the CFO) was not involved and that the PIP preceded the appraisal. The court noted the Claimant admitted she was evaluated in July and December 2015, so a prior appraisal existed on which the PIP could rest. The PIP not yielding improvement led to a further PIP in April 2016. The Claimant also never used the appeal mechanism for appraisal results.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Having found the termination fair and lawful, the Claimant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought
All the reliefs - declaration, damages, special damages for ten years' salary, reinstatement and costs - depended on a finding of unfair termination. Since the court found the termination both procedurally and substantively fair, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- Poor performance is a valid ground for termination but the employer must first put in place corrective mechanisms, set clear and achievable standards, and give the employee a reasonable opportunity to improve
- The burden of proving that poor performance was a fair reason for dismissal rests on the employer
- The reasonableness of a dismissal for poor performance is judged within a band of reasonableness
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's Statement of claim dated 16th October, 2018 is dismissed
- 2.No orders on costs, the Claimant being currently unemployed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogechi v Almasi Beverages Limited (Cause 1441 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 563 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/563/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.