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 the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2278 (KLR)

Kamuri v Cleanshelf Supermarkets Limited (Cause 922 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2278 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 July 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
2,201 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled Cleanshelf unfairly sacked an employee for poor performance without appraisals, warnings, or a hearing, awarding him Kshs. 554,750.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as Head of Bakery Section from February 2011 to September 2015, claimed unfair termination and unpaid terminal dues after being sent on one month's compulsory leave for alleged unsatisfactory performance in August 2015 and terminated by letter dated 1st September 2015. He sought declarations of unfair termination, twelve months' salary in compensation, service pay, August 2015 salary, accrued leave pay, notice pay, and house allowance. The Respondent defended the termination as grounded on investigations revealing poor performance, gross misconduct and defrauding the company, and contended that terminal dues were lawfully applied to offset a Sacco loan it had guaranteed and the value of an unreturned laptop. The Court framed two issues: whether the termination was lawful and fair, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. It found no performance appraisal, performance improvement plan, or disciplinary process before termination; the alleged disciplinary summons of 24th August 2015 was not proved to have been served. The Respondent therefore failed to establish a valid reason under Section 43 or comply with Section 41 of the Employment Act. The offsetting of terminal dues against the Sacco loan was likewise held unlawful for want of the Claimant's express authorisation and proof of remittance. The Court awarded six months' salary in compensation, one month's notice pay, August 2015 salary and 21 days' leave pay, less the cost of the un-surrendered laptop, totalling Kshs. 554,750, with interest and costs to the Claimant. Claims for house allowance and service pay were declined as the payslips showed house allowance was paid and NSSF deductions were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reason for termination

Holding

Respondent failed to establish a valid reason under Section 43; no appraisal or performance improvement plan existed

Reasoning

The termination letter cited poor performance and verbal warnings, but no performance appraisal or improvement plan was produced. The Claimant was instead sent on compulsory leave, which the court found inconsistent with a genuine attempt to support improvement. Accordingly the Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason for termination.

p. 5
02

Procedural fairness under Section 41

Holding

No disciplinary process was conducted prior to termination; alleged invitation letter was not proved to have been served

Reasoning

The Respondent alleged a letter of 24th August 2015 inviting the Claimant to a disciplinary hearing which he did not attend, but no evidence of service was adduced and the letter was not mentioned in the termination letter. Section 41 requires explanation of reasons and hearing of representations before termination, which did not occur.

p. 5
03

Withholding of terminal dues for Sacco loan

Holding

Unlawful, absent express authorisation and proof of remittance to the Sacco

Reasoning

The Respondent applied the Claimant's terminal dues to offset a Sacco loan it had guaranteed. No evidence of the Claimant's concurrence or proof the funds moved to the Sacco was adduced. Following the Court's decision in Njenga & 4 others v Motor Boutique Limited, the action was held unlawful.

p. 5
04

Remedies

Holding

Six months' compensation, notice pay, August 2015 salary and leave pay awarded; house allowance and service pay declined

Reasoning

Compensation was assessed at six months considering length of service, non-contribution to termination, failure to appraise and lack of support. Salary for August 2015 and leave pay succeeded for want of contrary proof. House allowance and service pay failed as payslips showed payment of house allowance and NSSF deductions.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Proper procedure for poor performance requires pointing out shortcomings and giving the employee an opportunity to improve over a reasonable length of time
  • An employer alleging poor performance must demonstrate an objective performance evaluation system as a benchmark
  • An employer cannot withhold terminal dues to recover a Sacco loan absent express employee authorisation
  • Sending a poor performing employee on compulsory leave shows no intention of supporting improvement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant: 6 months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 420,000); 1 month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 70,000); salary for August 2015 (Kshs. 70,000); leave pay 70,000/30*21 (Kshs. 49,000); total Kshs. 609,000 less cost of un-surrendered laptop (Kshs. 54,250), amount payable Kshs. 554,750
  2. 2.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Claimant to have the costs of the case
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41 and 43 cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamuri v Cleanshelf Supermarkets Limited (Cause 922 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2278 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2278/eng@2025-07-31

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