Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialPartially AllowedCause 664 of 2010· [2011] KEIC 2 (KLR)

Njioka v Magadi Soda Company Limited (Cause 664 of 2010) (Civ) [2011] KEIC 2 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Industrial Court at Nairobi)
29 June 2011
4,589 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a sacked HR manager 12 months' salary because her employer couldn't prove poor performance or follow fair procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from October 2004 on permanent and pensionable terms and last serving as Human Resource Manager, Training and Development, was terminated on 2nd February 2010 on grounds of poor performance. She claimed salary to retirement, benefits in lieu of notice, damages for breach of trust and confidence, punitive damages, a certificate of service, and alternatively twelve months' salary, alleging the termination violated the Employment Act 2007, ILO Convention No 158 and the respondent's disciplinary procedure, and was motivated by ethnic and gender bias. The respondent defended the dismissal as a lawful termination for incompetence under clauses 13 and 14(b) of the contract. The court held that the respondent failed to prove a valid reason for dismissal under section 45 and to discharge its burden under section 43 of the Employment Act: the 2006/07 audit was discredited by the Managing Director's letter awarding the claimant a 5% merit increase, no warnings or documented disciplinary record existed, and the claimant had been confirmed after probation. Procedurally, the respondent flouted its own disciplinary procedure and the mandatory rules of natural justice echoed in section 41 of the Employment Act, terminating the claimant at a single meeting without prior notice of the allegations. The court declared the termination unfair, refused salary to retirement, reinstatement and uncontracted benefits, but awarded maximum compensation of twelve months' salary (Kshs 4,830,576) considering the claimant's age and the stigma of a wrongly-imposed underperformer label, with costs to the claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dismissal was for a valid reason under section 45 of the Employment Act 2007

Holding

The respondent failed to prove valid reason; the allegation of poor performance was unsupported by documentary evidence and contradicted by the Managing Director's merit award letter

Reasoning

Other than the 2006/07 audit reports, there was no documentary evidence of poor performance. The credibility of the audit was doubtful given the Managing Director's letter of 20th April 2007 congratulating the claimant and awarding a 5% merit increase. The claimant had been confirmed after probation, making persistent poor performance incredible, and there was no documented record of shortcomings or improvement procedures. The court therefore concluded poor performance did not precipitate the dismissal.

p. 7
02

Whether the termination procedure was lawful and fair

Holding

The respondent flouted the Employment Act, natural justice and its own disciplinary procedure; termination was unlawful and unfair

Reasoning

The respondent's disciplinary procedure required the employee to be informed of the offence and contemplated disciplinary action and given an opportunity to prepare a defence. The rules of natural justice, echoed by section 41 of the Employment Act, are mandatory in all disciplinary cases. No allegations were communicated in advance, no written warning or documentation existed, and the claimant was handed a termination letter at the same meeting where dissatisfaction was raised. The deviation rendered the termination unlawful on both substantive and procedural grounds.

p. 8
03

Appropriate remedies for unlawful termination

Holding

Maximum compensation of twelve months' salary awarded; claims for salary to retirement, reinstatement and uncontracted benefits refused

Reasoning

The court considered the claimant's age (51), the difficulty of securing alternative employment, and the stigma of being wrongly labelled an underperformer, finding this a fitting case for maximum compensation of twelve months' salary. However, the contract was not a lifelong commitment, the duty to mitigate applied, the parties' relationship had broken down irretrievably, and benefits such as water, electricity and furniture were not provided for in the contract.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must prove a valid reason and follow a fair procedure before terminating an employee for poor performance; the employee must be informed of the shortcomings and given a reasonable opportunity to improve over time
  • Disciplinary matters must be documented; they should not be left to the realm of oral engagement
  • The rules of natural justice are mandatory in all disciplinary cases, echoed by section 41 of the Employment Act 2007

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the claimant suffered unfair termination of her contract of employment
  2. 2.Payment of Kshs 4,830,576.00 by the respondent to the claimant, being twelve (12) months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination of her employment, in addition to the terminal dues already paid
  3. 3.The claimant to have the costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over employment and labour relations disputes (memorandum of claim filed in Cause 664 of 2010); claims founded on the Employment Act 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njioka v Magadi Soda Company Limited (Cause 664 of 2010)  (Civ) [2011] KEIC 2 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2011). Cause 664 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2011/2/eng@2011-06-29

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