Johannes Petrus Martinus Van Der Voort v HBM Flowers Kenya Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a farm manager's dismissal unfair because the employer couldn't prove its reasons and gave only 24 hours' notice of the disciplinary hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Commencement date of the employment relationship
Employment commenced on 1st September 2024, not 29th February 2024; the earlier arrangement was in substance a consultancy
Although the document was titled 'Contract of Employment', it described the Claimant as 'contractor' and the Respondent as 'client', remuneration was subject to withholding tax, and the Claimant invoiced through Timau Seedlings and Consultation Limited from January to September 2024. Applying ILO Recommendation No. 198 and Kenneth Kimani Mburu, the substance of the relationship prevailed over its label.
Valid and fair reason for termination
Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason; termination was substantively unfair
The Respondent alleged failure to implement the Scenario 3.1 strategic crop plan but never produced the plan or showed it was finalised, communicated to the Claimant, or had timelines and KPIs. Quality concerns were not independently attributed to the Claimant, as consignments had been cleared by KEPHIS and similar complaints persisted after his termination.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Termination was procedurally unfair; notice of the disciplinary hearing was inadequate
The Claimant was told on 6th August 2025, at 16:45, that a meeting set for 7th August was a disciplinary hearing, giving roughly 24 hours' notice. Following Nebert Mandala Ombajo, such short notice on serious allegations impaired his ability to prepare, and his attendance did not waive the employer's Section 41 obligations.
House allowance entitlement
Claimant entitled to house allowance at 15% of basic salary per Section 31(1) of the Employment Act
The pay slip showed basic pay with house allowance at 0.00, and there was no indication the Respondent provided housing. Following Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Ltd v Andrew Waithaka Kiragu, house allowance was computed at 15% of basic salary for the employment period.
Legal principles established
#- Courts are not bound by parties' characterisation of a relationship as consultancy or employment; the substance of the arrangement prevails
- An employer bears the statutory burden of proving a valid and fair reason for termination on a balance of probabilities
- Approximately 24 hours' notice of a disciplinary hearing on serious allegations is inadequate and prejudices the employee's defence
- Attendance at a disciplinary hearing does not cure prejudice caused by inadequate notice; the fairness obligation rests with the employer
- House allowance cannot be inferred as consolidated into basic salary absent express provision, regardless of remuneration quantum
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was both substantively and procedurally unfair
- 2.Compensation of EUR 22,500, being three months' salary
- 3.Kshs. 1,546,051.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice and salary for 11 days worked in August 2025
- 4.EUR 62.50 for accrued annual leave equivalent to 0.25 days
- 5.EUR 12,787.50 as house allowance for 11 months and 11 days
- 6.Interest at court rates on the awards from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 8.Respondent to issue a certificate of service within 14 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (first-instance employment cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johannes Petrus Martinus Van Der Voort v HBM Flowers Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E033 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2639/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.