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. E029 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2460 (KLR)

Jared Onyango Agimba v Victory Farms Limited

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
21 September 2026
2,143 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 dismissed a manager's unfair dismissal claim because his employer followed proper disciplinary steps and had valid reasons.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent as Project and Business Development Manager for the Boo Bay farm from 17th February 2020, sued over his summary dismissal on 21st September 2024, seeking a declaration of unfair termination, reinstatement, pay in lieu of notice, a 2024 annual bonus, compensation of Kshs. 2,280,000/-, unpaid leave days, costs and interest. The Respondent justified the dismissal on grounds of fraud, negligence and poor project management, asserting procedural fairness through a notice to show cause, a disciplinary hearing and an unused appeal avenue. Both parties filed submissions identifying two issues: fairness of the termination and entitlement to reliefs. The court found the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness - he received a notice to show cause, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing and his defence was considered. On substance, the court held there was cause for the disciplinary process, the Claimant having admitted an issue with the tiling of some property, and that a breach by the employee was evident on all material before the employer. The Claimant was found to have failed to surmount the legal hurdles of sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, leaving him with no remedy. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs. Notably, the court did not separately analyse the individual heads of relief, and the delivery date of 21st September 2026 appears to be a typographical error.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The Claimant was accorded procedural fairness: he was issued a notice to show cause, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing and his defence was considered

Reasoning

The court traced the disciplinary process: notice to show cause dated 27th August 2024, response, disciplinary hearing on 11th September 2024, consideration of the defence, then dismissal on 21st September 2024. The Claimant's failure to pursue his internal appeal was also noted against him.

p. 13
02

Substantive justification for the dismissal

Holding

There was cause for the disciplinary process and a breach by the employee was evident, justifying termination

Reasoning

The court found the Claimant admitted an issue with the tiling of some property, and that on all material before the employer a breach was evident. The court did not require the employer to prove fraud to the criminal standard; it accepted the employer's material as sufficient.

p. 13
03

Burden of proof under sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act

Holding

The Claimant failed to discharge the legal burden of showing the termination was unfair

Reasoning

The court held the Claimant had not surmounted the hurdles imposed by sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, adopting the Respondent's submission that the Claimant bore the initial burden under section 47(5) and failed to displace it.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee who has been accorded procedural fairness and against whom a valid reason exists cannot obtain remedies under sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (suit for unfair termination); no specific constitutional provision invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jared Onyango Agimba v Victory Farms Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E029 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2460/eng@2026-09-21

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