Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 25th October 2021· [2025] KEELRC 1543 (KLR)

Nyawira v Pharmaccess Foundation (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E907 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1543 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 May 2025
2,790 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

#

A Kenyan employer lost an unfair termination case because it cut short an employee's performance improvement plan and never held a disciplinary hearing before dismissing her.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed in 2013 as a Quality Officer and rising to Business Advisor on an open-ended contract earning Kshs. 211,914.20 monthly, claimed unfair and unlawful termination and non-payment of terminal dues, seeking Kshs. 4,026,369.80. She was placed on successive Performance Improvement Plans from November 2019 and terminated on 5th May 2021 on grounds of poor performance. The Respondent defended the termination as lawful, asserting performance reviews were conducted in her presence and she was given opportunities to improve, and that one month's notice and accrued leave were paid. The court found that although the Respondent may have had evidence of poor performance, the Claimant was repeatedly reassessed before the expiry of each three-month PIP without a breather, and there was no evidence of a disciplinary hearing at which her poor performance was tested and she could defend herself. The termination was therefore procedurally unfair and unjustified under Sections 41 and 45(2) of the Employment Act 2007. The court awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 211,914.20), eight months' salary as compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 1,695,313.60), and two years' untaken leave (Kshs. 423,828.40), totalling Kshs. 2,331,056.20 less statutory deductions. The prayer for service pay was refused as the Claimant was an NSSF member under Section 35(5) and (6). Costs of the suit and interest at court rates from the date of judgment were awarded against the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was fair in procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act

Holding

Termination was procedurally unfair; no disciplinary hearing was held and the employee was not given a chance to defend herself

Reasoning

The court reviewed the chronology of PIPs and found the Claimant was repeatedly reassessed before the expiry of each 3-month PIP without being given a breather. No disciplinary hearing was conducted and her poor performance was never tested in a hearing where she could defend herself, breaching Section 41.

p. 6
02

Whether the reason for termination was valid and fair under Section 45(2)

Holding

Even if the Respondent had evidence of poor performance, the failure to follow fair procedure rendered the termination unfair and unjustified

Reasoning

The Respondent was expected to grant the Claimant enough time before reassessing her but kept pushing her without considering the timelines on the PIPs. Under Section 45(2) an employer must prove valid reason, fair reason and fair procedure; procedure having failed, the termination was unfair.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to service pay

Holding

Service pay is not payable to an employee who is a member of NSSF

Reasoning

The Claimant confirmed she was a member of NSSF and payslips showed remittances. Section 35(6)(d) of the Employment Act excludes NSSF members from the service pay scheme.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must allow a performance improvement plan to run its full stated period before reassessing the employee and must subject the employee to a disciplinary hearing before terminating for poor performance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 211,914.20
  2. 2.Compensation of 8 months' salary for unfair termination, Kshs. 1,695,313.60
  3. 3.Payment for 2 years' untaken leave, Kshs. 423,828.40
  4. 4.Total award of Kshs. 2,331,056.20 less statutory deductions
  5. 5.Respondent to pay costs of suit
  6. 6.Interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
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, "Nyawira v Pharmaccess Foundation (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E907 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1543 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 25th October 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1543/eng@2025-05-27

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