Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Cause filed 1 September 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 1063 (KLR)

Mageto v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E714 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1063 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 April 2025
RSRadido Stephen
2,119 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's tax authority unfairly sacked a 20-year employee over a performance threshold that was never in her signed contract, winning her Sh5.93 million.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a Kenya Revenue Authority employee of about 20 years, sued for unfair termination following dismissal on 3 February 2022 on grounds of negligence of duty arising from poor performance - her self-assessed end-year 2020/2021 score of 95.20% having been moderated to 84.52%, below the Respondent's asserted 90% minimum threshold. The Court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair, and whether remedies were due. On procedural fairness, the Court found the Respondent had complied with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act: the Claimant received a show cause, responded in writing, attended a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, and exercised an appeal. On substantive fairness, the Court held the Respondent failed to discharge its burden under sections 43 and 45. The Performance Improvement Plan of February to June 2020 lapsed without evaluation, and the benefit of doubt went to the Claimant that she completed it successfully; her redeployment also rendered its targets redundant. The validation of her 2020/2021 appraisal was not properly concluded - the appraisal template bore no validators' names, signatures or dates, and no panel member testified to contradict her account. Crucially, the executed Performance Contract rated 84.52% as good performance, and the 90% threshold relied on by the Respondent came only from an internal Newsflash guideline, not the contract. The Court declared the termination unfair. Reinstatement was refused for lack of exceptional circumstances; compensation of 10 months' gross wages (Kshs 5,930,000/-) was awarded given her long service, together with a Certificate of Service within 21 days, interest from the date of judgment, and costs to the Claimant. Delivered virtually on 3 April 2025 by Radido Stephen, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination process

Holding

The Respondent complied with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act; the process was procedurally fair.

Reasoning

The Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded in writing, was invited to an oral disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied by a colleague, attended the hearing, was informed of the right of appeal, and exercised it. Shortcomings in the appeal handling did not render the process unfair.

p. 2
02

Substantive fairness - validity of the reasons for termination

Holding

The Respondent failed to prove valid and fair reasons for termination; the performance validation was not properly conducted and the 90% threshold was not in the executed contract.

Reasoning

The PIP lapsed without evaluation and the redeployment made its targets redundant. The validation of the end-year appraisal was inconclusive - the appraisal template had no names, signatures or dates of validators, and no panel member testified to rebut the Claimant's account. The 90% minimum threshold came from a Newsflash guideline, not the signed Performance Contract under which 84.52% rated as good performance attracting no disciplinary sanction.

p. 5
03

Appropriate remedies

Holding

Reinstatement refused for lack of exceptional circumstances; compensation of 10 months' gross wages awarded given about 20 years of service.

Reasoning

Reinstatement is discretionary and granted only in exceptional circumstances, none of which were pleaded or evidenced. Factoring the length of service of about 20 years and a gross salary at separation of Kshs 593,000/-, 10 months' gross wages was appropriate.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place the burden on the employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for termination
  • Where a Performance Improvement Plan lapses without evaluation or validation, the benefit of doubt goes to the employee that they successfully completed it
  • Where an executed employment contract sets performance rating thresholds, an employer cannot rely on an unpublished internal guideline threshold not part of the contract to justify termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
  2. 2.Compensation of Kshs 5,930,000/- (equivalent to 10 months' gross wages)
  3. 3.The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 21 days
  4. 4.The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment
  5. 5.The Claimant to have costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination of employment (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mageto v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E714 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 1 September 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1063/eng@2025-04-03

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