Margaret Onguti Migiro v Novo Science Bio Solutions Limited

unbecoming of an employee of the Respondent and that her conduct amounted to sabotage of the company. 4. The disciplinary process that followed culminated in the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 23rd April 2025. 5. It is the Claimant’s case that her termination was wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unfair. She consequently seeks compensation for unfair termination equivalent to 12 months’ salary; one (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice; unpaid half salary for March 2025; salary for April and May 2025; unpaid housing allowance; reimbursement of the balance of expenses incurred in repairing the Respondent’s faulty water pump; costs of the suit; interest; and a certificate of service. 6. The Respondent has opposed the Claim through a Memorandum of Response dated 25th November 2025. The Respondent has disputed the Claimant’s assertion that she had been appointed as Human Resource Manager, contending that her academic qualifications did not render her eligible for such a position. The Respondent maintains that the Claimant’s dealings with members of staff were coincidental and undertaken in the course of her role as Operations Manager. 2

page 2 of 55

7. The Respondent has further contended that the allegations levelled against the Claimant were weighty and well substantiated, including allegations of sabotage against the company, and that her conduct had occasioned extreme conflict and hostility among the employees. 8. The Respondent maintains that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was founded on valid and substantiated reasons and was effected in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements. To this end, the Respondent has urged the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs. 9. The matter proceeded to hearing on diverse dates during which both parties tendered oral evidence in support of their respective cases. Claimant’s Case 10.The Claimant testified in support of her case as CW1. At the outset, she adopted her initial and supplementary witness statements, together with the initial and supplementary list and bundle of documents filed on her behalf, as her evidence in chief. 11.The Claimant testified that although she was officially scheduled to report to work on 1st January 2024, she commenced her employment on 1st December 2023, one month earlier, following persistent persuasion by the Respondent’s 3

page 3 of 55

agents. She stated that, prior to joining the Respondent, she had been employed by Dudutech Limited as an Assistant Production Manager, where she had served continuously for 10 years. 12.She stated that her decision to join the Respondent, including her agreement to commence employment earlier than scheduled, followed persistent approaches by Dr. Vitalis Wafula Wekesa, Mr. Mahendra Shah, Jogi Rupra and Prof. Romano Mwirichia, whom she reasonably believed to be directors of the Respondent. 13.The Claimant testified that, as the Respondent’s inaugural Operations Manager, her role was to assist Prof. Romano, who was her direct supervisor, in overseeing the smooth establishment and running of the company’s operations. Being part of the pioneer team, she stated that her principal contributions included advising on production infrastructure and design; establishing production culture; sourcing and training the technical team; providing technical advice; ensuring regulatory compliance and process improvement; monitoring data and reporting; and overseeing health, safety and staff welfare. 14.She stated that on 8th November 2024, Prof. Romano left the Respondent’s employment, following which Dr. Vitalis became her immediate supervisor. 4

page 4 of 55

15.The Claimant further testified that, on or about 24 th November 2024, Dr. Vitalis assigned her the additional role of Human Resource Manager. Her responsibilities in that capacity included preparing monthly payrolls, preparing job cards and budgets for employees, handling employee welfare issues and introducing job descriptions. 16.She stated that, on the same date, her colleague, Mr. Tofick Wekesa, was assigned the additional role of Head of Logistics and Procurement. According to the Claimant, she was expected to work closely with Mr. Tofick to ensure the smooth running of the company, with both of them reporting to Dr. Vitalis. 17.The Claimant testified that her responsibilities as Operations Manager and Human Resource Manager were not without challenges. Among the issues she sought to address was what she described as a pattern of sabotage in the production of Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseus californicus by some employees. She stated that she repeatedly raised the matter with Dr. Vitalis and recommended that a meeting be held with the employees concerned. 18.She testified that Dr. Vitalis eventually agreed to her request for a meeting with the production team, which was held on 2nd March 2025. However, according to the Claimant, the meeting took an unexpected turn when Dr. Vitalis criticised 5

page 5 of 55

and reprimanded her in the presence of other employees, many of whom were her immediate supervisees. 19.The Claimant stated that Dr. Vitalis advised the members of the team to “grow horns”, assuring them that they were there to stay and would soon be promoted to managerial positions. 20.She further testified that he instructed an employee, David Kingori, to continue production for two (2) months without her involvement, notwithstanding that she was his immediate supervisor. She also stated that Dr. Vitalis declined to invite two (2) other team members, Paul Ochako and Anthony Theuri, whom she considered to work closely with Moses, whom she regarded as the principal employee involved in the alleged sabotage. 21.The Claimant testified that, on or about 3rd March 2025, she communicated her dissatisfaction to Dr. Vitalis regarding the manner in which he had conducted the meeting of 2nd March 2025. 22.She stated that, in response, Dr. Vitalis wrote to her on 4 th March 2025 and directed her to proceed on compulsory leave for one week, with instructions to resume work on 10th March 2025 after having had an opportunity to “cool off” from the stress. 6

page 6 of 55

23.Upon reporting back to work on 10 th March 2025, the Claimant stated that she was served with a notice to show cause. 24.She testified that the allegations contained in the notice to show cause were unfounded and without cogent basis. She denied the allegations and responded to the notice in writing on 11th March 2025. 25.According to the Claimant, the notice to show cause also invited her to attend a disciplinary hearing before her response had been considered. She further stated that she was suspended from duty for one month and an additional two (2) weeks on half salary. 26.She testified that the disciplinary hearing was initially scheduled for 16 th March 2025 but was subsequently rescheduled to 18th March 2025, when she attended. 27.The Claimant stated that, at the disciplinary hearing, she was called upon to respond to allegations relating to sabotage in production, changing the production culture and failure to maintain open communication channels. She contended that some of her principal accusers, including Dr. Vitalis, who was also her immediate supervisor, were absent from the hearing. As a result, she contended that she was denied an opportunity to question or cross-examine them. 7

page 7 of 55

28.The Claimant further testified that, on 4th April 2025, Mr. Tofick invited her to sign the minutes of the disciplinary hearing on 5 th April 2025. She requested to receive a copy of the draft minutes beforehand so as to review their contents. However, Mr. Tofick referred her to Dr. Vitalis, who in turn directed her to Mr. Jogi. 29.She contended that the Respondent thereby denied her a reasonable opportunity to acquaint herself with the contents of the minutes and ascertain whether they accurately reflected what had transpired during the disciplinary hearing. She consequently declined to sign the minutes and renewed her request for a copy, which she stated Mr. Tofick declined to provide. 30.On 23rd April 2025, the Respondent issued her with a termination letter informing her that management had decided to summarily dismiss her from employment with immediate effect. 31.The Claimant stated that, on 5th May 2025, she lodged an appeal against her summary dismissal. In the appeal, she requested an independent and impartial consideration of her case and that the persons who had made accusations against her be required to attend the appeal hearing. 8

page 8 of 55

32.She testified that she attended the appeal hearing on 27 th May 2025. According to her, Dr. Vitalis, who was her immediate supervisor and the principal complainant against her, attended the hearing and participated in determining her appeal. 33.She contended that she was not afforded an opportunity to question him or any of the other persons who had made allegations against her, none of whom, she stated, attended the appeal hearing. 34.The Claimant stated that, on 28th May 2025, Mr. Mahendra communicated the Respondent’s decision to uphold her summary dismissal. She testified that the decision was made subject to certain conditions before her terminal dues could be processed, namely, the return of all company property, including the computer password and office keys, as well as the company telephone. 35.She stated that, on 2nd June 2025, she acknowledged receipt of the communication under protest. She explained that she did not have any computer passwords or office keys. She also requested reimbursement of Kshs. 9,045/=, being the balance of expenses she had incurred from her own funds in repairing the Respondent’s water pump, the total expenditure having been Kshs. 19,045/=. 9

page 9 of 55

36.The Claimant testified that she cleared with the Respondent on 10 th June 2025 and that despite explaining to Mr. Tofick that the M-PESA statements constituted evidence of the expenses incurred, the Respondent neither reimbursed the outstanding Kshs. 9,045/= nor paid her terminal dues or issued her with a certificate of service. 37.In her supplementary witness statement, the Claimant disputed the authenticity of the Human Resource Manual produced by the Respondent. She maintained that no such manual existed during the period of her employment. 38.She further denied ever demanding the “immediate termination” of Moses Atandola, Felix Murithi and David Kingori. According to the Claimant, what she had sought was a formal meeting to address suspected acts of sabotage in production which she had observed and reported to management. 39.The Claimant also challenged the production data relied upon by the Respondent, describing it as a gross misrepresentation of the actual position. She contended that any increase in production following her departure did not demonstrate that she had caused the alleged production problems. Rather, she maintained that the Respondent had deliberately under-resourced or otherwise 10

page 10 of 55

undermined her department in order to create a basis for terminating her employment. 40.She further testified that, throughout her employment, the Respondent did not issue her with any pay slips despite her repeated verbal and written requests. According to her, the first and only pay slip she received was for April 2025, after her suspension and shortly before the termination of her employment. 41.The Claimant further testified that Dr. Vitalis ceased to be a director of the Respondent on 14th March 2025, four (4) days after she had been served with the notice to show cause and four (4) days before the disciplinary hearing. 42.She expressed the view that his resignation was intended to insulate him from liability for what she regarded as an unlawful termination, while he continued to exercise influence within the Respondent in the capacity of a Senior Manager. 43.The Claimant further challenged the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses, Tofick Wekesa, David Kingori and Felix Murithi, whom she described as junior employees whose continued employment depended on the Respondent’s directors, particularly Dr. Vitalis. 44.She contended that, having witnessed what she described as a campaign by the directors to remove her from employment, the said employees had reason to 11

page 11 of 55

provide evidence favourable to the Respondent in order to safeguard their own positions. 45.The Claimant further referred to an email allegedly sent to her by David Kingori on 11th February 2025, which she characterised as an apology and a direct admission of production delays and performance problems under his responsibility, including the need for additional time to complete production. 46.She denied arbitrarily changing the production culture or taking any action intended to sabotage production. According to the Claimant, any adjustments she made were informed by technical observations and quality-control protocols and fell squarely within her responsibilities as Operations Manager. 47.The Claimant maintained that her appointment to the additional role of Human Resource Manager was genuine and was demonstrated by the functions she performed over several months. She contended that her academic qualifications were irrelevant to the fact of the assignment, which, in her view, was made in response to the Respondent’s human resource needs and its confidence in her abilities. 48.In this regard, she stated that, from December 2024 until her suspension, she prepared the monthly payroll for all employees, was sent by Mr. Mahendra to 12

page 12 of 55

the Embu Labour Office to inquire into labour requirements, and handled various staff concerns, including queries relating to pay slips and NHIF updates, which she escalated to Prof. Romano. 49.The Claimant maintained that her termination was not founded on a valid reason but was the culmination of what she described as a deliberate and malicious scheme to remove her from employment. Respondent’s Case 50.The Respondent called four (4) witnesses, namely Dr. Vitalis Wafula, David Kingori, Tofick Wekesa and Felix Mureithi, who testified as RW1, RW2, RW3 and RW4, respectively. 51.Dr. Vitalis, who was the first to testify, introduced himself as a director of the Respondent. He proceeded to adopt his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced the Respondent’s list and bundle of documents as exhibits before the Court. 52.RW1 testified that the Respondent initially engaged the Claimant as a consultant with effect from 1st December 2023 and subsequently employed her with effect from 1st January 2024. He stated that the Claimant joined the 13

page 13 of 55

Respondent during its early start-up phase, having been incorporated in June 2023, and was entrusted with overseeing the general operations of the company, with particular emphasis on production and quality control, which constituted its core business and fell within her area of expertise. 53.RW1 further testified that, as the Respondent onboarded more employees in 2025, it sought to establish proper organisational structures, including the issuance of employment contracts and job descriptions 54.He stated that, although the Claimant’s duties largely remained unchanged, the Respondent intended to separate the general operations of the company, with production and procurement being assigned to different persons. 55.According to him, the Claimant was to remain responsible for the production of macrobials, with the objective of distributing the workload more equitably among the staff. 56.On remuneration, RW1 testified that the Claimant was to receive a basic salary of Kshs. 200,000/= and a housing allowance of Kshs. 20,000/=, making a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 220,000/=. He maintained that these terms were observed throughout her employment and that her claim for an additional housing allowance was therefore unfounded. 14

page 14 of 55

57.RW1 further testified that, by March 2025, the Respondent had received numerous complaints from clients concerning the poor quality of its products and low production levels. 58.According to RW1, the issues concerning the Claimant’s conduct came to light when she approached him and demanded the immediate termination of three (3) employees, namely Moses Atondola, Felix Murithi and David King’ori. 59.He stated that he informed the Claimant that employees could not be arbitrarily terminated without just cause and arranged an informal meeting with the Claimant and the three (3) employees, as he initially did not consider the matter to be particularly serious. 60.RW1 testified that, during the meeting held on 2 nd March 2025, the other employees present raised what he described as serious complaints concerning harassment and animosity allegedly directed at them by the Claimant in her capacity as their manager. 61.He stated that the employees expressed dissatisfaction with the working environment, with some indicating that they were considering leaving the company. He further testified that some of the complaints related to alleged sabotage of the Respondent’s business, including an allegation that the 15

page 15 of 55

Claimant had interfered with culture bags prepared by Moses Atondola while he was on leave. 62.According to RW1, the alleged interference slowed production, resulted in rushed sales and occasioned significant financial loss to the company. He stated that the other complaints were set out in the notice to show cause. 63.RW1 maintained that the meeting revealed serious communication problems and a highly toxic working environment within the production department, which he attributed to the Claimant’s conduct, alleged acts of sabotage and poor management. 64.He testified that, having witnessed the events of the meeting and reviewed the statements made by the employees, he prepared a report setting out his assessment of the matter and presented it to the other directors. 65.RW1 further stated that the other two (2) directors independently met with the employees and investigated the complaints. According to him, they reached similar conclusions concerning the Claimant’s conduct, which they considered indicative of sabotage, cruelty, harassment and poor performance of her managerial duties. 16

page 16 of 55

66.He added that, after reviewing the employees’ statements and what he described as combative correspondence from the Claimant, the directors unanimously decided that she should take some time off on full pay to enable her to cool off. 67.RW1 testified that the Respondent’s top management subsequently decided to issue the Claimant with a notice to show cause. He stated that she was also suspended for one month, which was later extended by a further two (2) weeks, to allow the Respondent to investigate the allegations and assess whether her absence would address the complaints raised by clients and employees. 68.He stated that the notice to show cause set out specific complaints against the Claimant and informed her of her rights, including the opportunity to submit a written response, which he described as optional. 69.RW1 testified that the Claimant was accorded a disciplinary hearing on 18th March 2025, during which various employees who had raised complaints were called to give her an opportunity to respond to the allegations. 70.RW1 was categorical that he did not participate in the disciplinary hearing, which was conducted by the other two (2) directors. He stated that he was subsequently briefed by his co-directors on the proceedings and that they were unanimous in their view that the Claimant had engaged in a “divide and rule” 17

page 17 of 55

approach, sabotaged the work of employees who appeared to be performing well, and created hostility among the staff, thereby adversely affecting production and quality. He further testified that he was informed that the Claimant had declined to sign the minutes. 71.RW1 maintained that the Claimant had been afforded an opportunity to present her case, respond to the allegations and challenge the evidence against her, but had been unable to disprove the accusations. 72.He further testified that the Respondent did not make an immediate determination after the disciplinary hearing because it wished to investigate the matter fully and establish whether the Claimant’s absence would result in improvements in production, client satisfaction and the general working environment. Consequently, the Claimant remained on suspension for an initial period of one month, which was extended by a further two (2) weeks. 73.RW1 stated that, during the Claimant’s absence, production increased to approximately twice its previous level. He further testified that the Respondent gradually addressed client dissatisfaction and began rebuilding its relationships with customers after acknowledging the challenges it had experienced in production and quality. 18

page 18 of 55

74.He added that employees reported improved job satisfaction and morale, which he attributed to the Claimant’s absence. He also stated that clients expressed appreciation for the improved quality of the products, resulting in a substantial increase in the company’s sales. 75.RW1 testified that, after the investigations pointed to what he described as the Claimant’s poor management style and alleged sabotage of her colleagues’ work, the Respondent had no option but to terminate her employment. 76.He reiterated that he had not participated in the disciplinary hearing or the initial decision to terminate the Claimant. He stated that the other directors had sat as the disciplinary panel and that the decision to terminate her employment was unanimous, rather than being based on the opinion of one individual. 77.RW1 further testified that, during the appeal hearing, the Claimant stated that she did not intend to resume her duties at the company and only wished to have the termination letter withdrawn so that she could resign. 78.He maintained that the Claimant had demonstrated that she was no longer able to perform her duties or manage her department professionally and was therefore no longer suitable for the Respondent’s team. In his view, the decision 19

page 19 of 55

to terminate her employment was legally justifiable and necessary to safeguard the Respondent, which was still a young company, from further harm. 79.RW1 stated that he had no personal issues with the Claimant and that he had recommended her for the position and played a significant role in her onboarding, as they were friends. 80.He further testified that he had convened the initial meeting with the Claimant and the three (3) employees at her request, following her recommendation that they be terminated. However, the meeting took an unexpected turn when the employees raised allegations of harassment and sabotage against her. He maintained that, after that meeting, he did not recommend her termination or the commencement of disciplinary proceedings, but that his co-directors independently reviewed the matter and considered disciplinary action necessary. 81.RW1 maintained that the Claimant was terminated for valid reasons, as the Respondent could no longer continue operating with a manager whose conduct, in his view, had undermined the ability of the team to perform. He stated that, had the situation been allowed to continue, production would have declined further and the company would ultimately have been crippled. 20

page 20 of 55

82.RW1 further testified that his resignation as a director and shareholder of the Respondent was unrelated to the Claimant’s case and was instead occasioned by an intended restructuring of the company. He added that, although he was no longer a director or shareholder for a period of time, he continued to serve as a Senior Manager. 83.David Kingori Ndungu, who testified as RW2, adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and produced the list and bundle of documents filed by the Respondent as exhibits. 84.RW2 identified himself as a Production Officer in the Macrobials Department of the Respondent, a position he had held since 11th November 2023. 85.He testified that, from the time the Claimant joined the Respondent, he worked directly under her supervision. 86.According to RW2, the Claimant adopted what he described as harsh “divide and rule” tactics, resulting in what he characterised as extreme and persistent harassment in the workplace. 21

page 21 of 55

87.He stated that much of the alleged harassment appeared to stem from his close working relationship with Mr. Tofick Wekesa, who also held a managerial position. 88.RW2 testified that he regarded the Claimant’s departure from the Respondent as a relief, as he had contemplated leaving his employment because of the alleged harassment. 89.He stated that he had been working diligently and was enthusiastic about contributing to the growth of the Respondent company, and was therefore disappointed that, instead of recognising his efforts, the Claimant allegedly took steps that undermined his work and portrayed him as a non-performer. 90.RW2 recalled an incident in which, according to him, the Claimant changed the culture of one of the Respondent’s products, Novo Phytoseiulus persimilis (Phytos), without consulting him, allegedly on the ground that the culture he had prepared was contaminated. 91.He further testified that the Claimant interfered with culture bags prepared by his former colleague, Moses Atondola. 22

page 22 of 55

92.RW2 maintained that the allegation that the culture he had prepared was contaminated was false, as no such complaint had been received from the Respondent’s major clients. 93.In his view, the alteration of the culture without notifying him was intended to slow down production and thereby portray him as a poor performer. 94.RW2 testified that, following the Claimant’s departure, the Respondent resumed its original culture preparation processes and that the subsequent increase in production and client satisfaction demonstrated the effect of the changes. 95.He further stated that the Claimant frequently complained that he failed to submit work reports, yet she had blocked him from communicating with her, notwithstanding that the team ordinarily shared reports and other work-related information through WhatsApp and telephone calls. 96.Tofick Wekesa, who testified as RW3, identified himself as a former employee of the Respondent. He stated that he had served as Head of Production in the Microbial Biocontrol Department from 1st July 2024. Similarly, he adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. 23

page 23 of 55

97.RW3 testified that, over time, he experienced what he described as persistent interference by the Claimant with his duties, undermining of his role and creation of a hostile working environment. 98.He recalled an incident around 20th December 2024 when he averred that he had requested a departmental meeting at 8.00 a.m. to discuss various serious issues affecting the department. He stated that he informed the Claimant of the importance of the meeting, particularly because he had a meeting with one of the Respondent’s clients, Ecoroses, later that morning. 99.RW3 testified that the meeting was important because it was intended to address key departmental issues and the Claimant was scheduled to proceed on leave, making it difficult to secure another opportunity to meet. He stated that, notwithstanding this, the Claimant dismissed the request, stating that the matter was not an emergency and that she was busy. The Claimant did not, according to RW3, propose an alternative time for the meeting. 100. He maintained that the Claimant’s failure to attend the meeting meant that critical departmental matters remained unresolved and hindered his ability to discharge his responsibilities effectively. He stated that the Claimant generally 24

page 24 of 55

did not encourage opportunities for team discussions concerning departmental issues. 101. RW3 further testified that, throughout their working relationship, the Claimant repeatedly communicated what he described as negative, misleading and unfair information about him to other employees, much of which he characterised as unsubstantiated gossip. He stated that she would also raise such matters with Dr. Vitalis, particularly when he was absent, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond. 102. According to RW3, the alleged dissemination of false and misleading information created unnecessary misunderstandings concerning his work, damaged his professional standing and contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust within the workplace. 103. He further testified that, on several occasions, the Claimant discussed his duties and departmental decisions with other employees in a manner that undermined his authority. He stated that such discussions created confusion among staff concerning instructions and contributed to internal tensions. 104. RW3 stated that the Claimant’s interactions with other employees appeared to suggest an effort to weaken his position, undermine respect for his role and 25

page 25 of 55

interfere with departmental cohesion. He maintained that this affected the normal workflow and created what he described as an intimidating environment for him as a supervisor. 105. RW3 further testified that, given that under the company’s policy, two (2) managers would generally not proceed on leave at the same time, the Claimant would consistently secure leave for herself during both holiday months without regard to his leave arrangements. He viewed this as an intentional attempt to frustrate him. 106. He stated that some employees later informed him that they had been too intimidated to make formal complaints against the Claimant because she portrayed herself as having significant influence, including the ability to have employees terminated. According to RW3, the employees consequently sought to remain on good terms with the Claimant to avoid possible adverse consequences. 107. RW3 further testified that he noticed that several employees avoided associating or communicating with him. He subsequently learnt that some of them, including David Kingori, had allegedly experienced frustration and threats from the Claimant because of their association with him. 26

page 26 of 55

108. According to RW3, the Claimant was preoccupied with creating divisions among employees, spreading what he described as unnecessary gossip and interfering with the work of employees who were performing well. He stated that, on two (2) separate occasions, he received complaints concerning changes made to other employees’ cultures, which adversely affected production and resulted in complaints from clients. 109. RW3 testified that the employees felt relieved when the Claimant was suspended. He opined that as a manager and supervisor himself, the Claimant’s presence had made it difficult to maintain a cohesive team because of what he described as a toxic working environment, which, if allowed to persist, could have adversely affected the viability of the company. 110. He further testified that, following the Claimant’s departure, employees reported greater job satisfaction and that production, and consequently sales of macrobials, had doubled. He stated that the Respondent had consequently continued to grow and that complaints from clients had ceased. 111. RW3 further stated that, after the disciplinary hearing, he communicated to the Claimant on several occasions, both orally and in writing, that the minutes 27

page 27 of 55

of the hearing were available for her review, signature and collection of a copy. He stated that she nevertheless did not avail herself for that purpose. 112. He further testified that, in April 2025, the Respondent sought to install antivirus software on its computers as part of its security measures and consequently requested the Claimant to provide the password to her office computer. 113. According to RW3, the Claimant declined to provide the password and had, at the time of his testimony, not done so or completed the requisite clearance with the Respondent. 114. RW3 also testified that, in his capacity as the person responsible for pettycash reimbursements, he repeatedly requested the Claimant to provide evidence of the expenditure she claimed to have incurred in repairing the Respondent’s water pump, but that she failed to do so. 115. He maintained that the Claimant had not produced any receipts and contended that there was no satisfactory explanation for her failure to provide supporting documentation when she sought reimbursement. 28

page 28 of 55

116. RW3 further stated that the alleged need for the repair had not been brought to the attention of the Respondent’s senior management and, in the absence of supporting documentation, he considered the claim for reimbursement unsubstantiated. 117. Felix Murithi, who testified as RW4, identified himself as an employee of the Respondent working as a Research Assistant in Innovation and Product Development, a position he had held since 2nd January 2024. Equally, he adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief. 118. RW4 testified that he was initially designated as a Research Assistant in the Microbial Department and that his interaction with the Claimant at that stage was limited. He stated that he enjoyed his work during that period. 119. He testified that his responsibilities were subsequently extended to the Macrobial Department, resulting in more frequent interaction with the Claimant, under whose supervision he then worked. 120. According to RW4, his experience working under the Claimant was characterised by what he described as extreme harassment and threats. He stated that she repeatedly demoralised him by accusing him of incompetence, notwithstanding his efforts to ensure that the work proceeded smoothly. 29

page 29 of 55

121. In particular, RW4 cited the Claimant’s alleged denial of his full access to certain areas necessary for the performance of his duties, especially the eggproduction section which in his view was frustrating. He asserted that the Respondent’s production data would demonstrate that the denial of access to the egg-production section adversely affected the production of predator mites. 122. RW4 further testified that the Claimant repeatedly accused him of incompetence in the performance of his duties at the packhouse, which she also managed. 123. He stated that the alleged harassment and accusations adversely affected his morale, but that subsequent internal investigations exonerated him from the allegations made against him. 124. RW4 testified that, following the Claimant’s departure, the employees enjoyed a more united and cohesive working environment and that, in his view, the improved working environment had contributed to the growth of the company. 30

page 30 of 55

Submissions 125. It was submitted on behalf of the Claimant that her summary dismissal by the Respondent was legally flawed for failing the test of substantive fairness and procedural fairness. 126. Referencing the case of Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge LTD (2013) KEIC 634 (KLR), it was submitted that the Respondent cannot be heard to advance poor performance as part of the reasons that warranted its summary dismissal of the Claimant without tabling any Performance Improvement Plan, Performance Evaluation Sheets and warning letters as per its Human Resources Manual. 127. It was further submitted that the Respondent’s witnesses were unable to substantiate allegations that the Claimant blocked official communication. According to the Claimant, she had tendered proof that there was uninterrupted communication, which was never challenged and/or controverted by the Respondent. 128. The Claimant further contended that the evidence tendered by David King’ori, the only witness who attended the Disciplinary Hearing, is 31

page 31 of 55

fundamentally unreliable because it is largely based on his personal opinion, prejudices against her, and hearsay. 129. It was the Claimant’s further submission that the Respondent failed to call critical witnesses like the other directors of the company who presided over the Disciplinary Hearing, Moses Atandola, who attended the disciplinary hearing, and independent evidence to corroborate the assertion of improved sales following her suspension and subsequent summary dismissal. 130. With regards to procedural fairness, the Claimant submitted that the disciplinary process undertaken by the Respondent grossly violated the mandatory requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act as well as the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and fair administrative action under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 131. According to the Claimant, the disciplinary process she was subjected to was demonstrably predetermined. In this regard, she submitted that she was issued with a show cause letter and simultaneously invited for disciplinary proceedings even before the Respondent had properly considered her written response. 132. In the Claimant’s view, the Respondent’s conduct demonstrated that the disciplinary hearing was a mere procedural ritual intended to legitimize an 32

page 32 of 55

already predetermined decision to dismiss her. In support of this position, the Claimant placed reliance on the case of Indogo v Ankole Grill Limited (2023) KEELRC 620 (KLR). 133. It was further submitted by the Claimant that she was denied adequate disclosure of the evidence relied upon by the Respondent. In the same vein, the Claimant posited that she was ambushed with allegations she had no meaningful opportunity to interrogate or rebut. To buttress this position, the Claimant placed reliance on the case of Consolata Katua v Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers & Anor (2025) KLR. 134. The Claimant further contended that the Respondent failed to accord her an opportunity to cross-examine crucial witnesses and accusers whose allegations formed the basis of the disciplinary process. 135. It was the Claimant’s further submission that the alleged Human Resources Manual was never supplied or communicated to her during her tenure, hence the disciplinary process was conducted under undisclosed procedures never brought to her attention. 136. The Claimant further submitted that the entire process was tainted with blatant bias and conflict of interest. It was her contention that Dr. Vitalis, who 33

page 33 of 55

was an accuser and a central figure in the allegations against her, sat as a member of the appeal panel during the Claimant’s appeal hearing held on 27th May 2025, while Dr. Mahendra, who was meant to be a neutral umpire at the appeal hearing, equally played both judge and jury. 137. On the part of the Respondent, it was submitted that the Claimant's summary dismissal was not a reactionary or arbitrary decision, but the culmination of a sustained pattern of misconduct that fundamentally undermined its operations, eroded workplace harmony and destroyed the trust and confidence indispensable to the employment relationship. 138. It was the Respondent’s position that as the Operations Manager, the Claimant occupied a position of considerable responsibility. That she was entrusted with overseeing production, coordinating staff and fostering an efficient working environment. The Respondent contended that instead of discharging those responsibilities, the evidence demonstrates that she abused her position of authority, intimidated colleagues, disrupted operations, and presided over a marked decline in productivity, thereby leaving it with no reasonable alternative but to summarily dismiss her. 139. Placing reliance on the case of Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 Others [2019] KECA 300 (KLR), the Respondent 34

page 34 of 55

submitted that it discharged its statutory burden under Sections 43(1) and 45(2) (a) and (b) of the Employment Act, as the evidence before the Court establishes that the Claimant's dismissal was grounded on acts of gross misconduct, harassment of colleagues, abuse of managerial authority, sabotage of operations and conduct wholly inconsistent with the obligations of a senior manager. 140. Citing the case of Aseyo v Omega Opticians Limited [2024] KEELRC 1717 (KLR), it was the Respondent’s position that the law does not require an employer to establish misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. 141. It was further submitted by the Respondent that it did not summarily dismiss the Claimant merely because production had declined or clients had lodged complaints. In this regard, the Respondent contended that the Claimant’s reliance on the case of Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge Limited [2013] eKLR was misplaced. 142. To this end, the Respondent submitted that the reasons for the Claimant's summary dismissal were valid, fair, and directly related to her conduct within the meaning of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. 143. The Respondent further submitted that the disciplinary process culminating in the Claimant's summary dismissal was not only substantively justified but 35

page 35 of 55

also conducted in strict compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Employment Act. In this regard, the Respondent submitted that at every stage of the disciplinary process, the Claimant was informed of the allegations against her, afforded adequate time to respond, invited to a disciplinary hearing, permitted to make representations, and ultimately accorded an opportunity to appeal the decision. 144. It was the Respondent’s position that far from being ambushed or condemned unheard, the Claimant was afforded every procedural protection contemplated under the law. 145. The Respondent further posited that procedural fairness is not determined by whether disciplinary minutes were ultimately signed but whether the employee was informed of the allegations, afforded a hearing, and genuinely heard before a decision was reached. In the Respondent’s view, those requirements were fully satisfied in the present case. Analysis and Determination 146. Having considered the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the parties’ respective submissions, the following issues arise for determination: 36

page 36 of 55

a) Whether the Respondent has proved that it had a valid and fair reason to terminate the Claimant’s employment; b) Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness prior to the termination of her employment; and c) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Claim. Valid and fair reason for termination? 147. Section 43(1) of the Employment Act places upon an employer the burden of proving the reason or reasons for terminating an employee’s employment. Where the employer fails to discharge that burden, the termination is deemed unfair. This provision must be read together with Section 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, which stipulates that a termination is unfair unless the employer demonstrates that the reason for the termination was valid and fair, and that it related to the employee’s conduct, capacity or compatibility, or arose from the employer’s operational requirements. 148. In the present case, the reason advanced by the Respondent for terminating the Claimant’s employment, as can be discerned from the letter of termination, was that the Claimant had been hostile towards her colleagues, thereby adversely affecting their morale at work. She was also accused of frustrating 37

page 37 of 55

communication efforts by members of staff, including blocking calls without justification. 149. Further, the Claimant was accused of interfering with the work of her colleagues, particularly by changing the product culture while one of the colleagues was on compassionate leave. It was alleged that this resulted in clients complaining about poor-quality products. The Claimant was also accused of influencing the timing of product harvesting, thereby creating an artificial product deficit which occasioned substantial losses to the Company. 150. The Claimant was further accused of being absent from work without providing reasons for her absence or giving prior notice. 151. The Claimant consistently denied the allegations levelled against her. She did so in her response to the notice to show cause, in her appeal against the termination from employment, and in her testimony before this Court. 152. With regard to the allegation that she had interfered with the product culture, the Claimant explained that a client had lodged a complaint, following which her supervisor, Dr. Vitalis, advised that a clean-up be undertaken if contamination was suspected. She stated that she immediately contacted the Quality Control Officer and David Kingori (RW2) to discuss the matter. 38

page 38 of 55

153. Upon investigation, they established that two screen houses had been affected. She consequently proposed that they commence by cleaning one screen house to ensure that they had a clean culture which could thereafter be used to clean the other affected screen houses. 154. The Claimant further stated that it was agreed that the existing product would be harvested by David Kingori and handed over to the Quality Control team for verification of its purity. 155. The Claimant explained that, in her capacity as Operations Manager, her responsibilities included overseeing the performance of her direct reportees. Her position was that David Kingori had misconstrued the discharge of that supervisory responsibility as interference with his work. 156. In support of her account, the Claimant produced screenshots of communications exchanged on 22nd January 2025 in what appears to have been a work WhatsApp group, in which the issue of contamination was discussed. In the exchange, one Doricus indicated that he had seen the “mite” and “debris”, identified the contaminant and forwarded a video to the group. In response, Dr. Vitalis (RW1) stated that the affected area might require a clean-up. 39

page 39 of 55

157. The Claimant further produced an email dated 11th February 2025 from David Kingori (RW2), titled “Apology”, in which he stated, in part: “…sorry for the mess it's due to immature communication, its our duty to deliver, especially this open window….the 2 lines of phyto are aside for ultra cleaning that start on Monday the other QC culture also in buildup and need time to concentrate in numbers….” 158. Notably, neither RW1 nor RW2 controverted the Claimant’s account of the events surrounding the alleged contamination and subsequent clean-up. Further, there was no independent evidence demonstrating that the Claimant had interfered with her colleague’s product culture or altered it without following the applicable protocol. 159. Further, there was no evidence directly linking the Claimant’s actions to the alleged production of poor-quality products, client complaints, or the losses allegedly suffered by the Company. 160. Similarly, the Claimant’s contention that the Company did not have standard operating procedures governing its operations was not controverted by the Respondent. 40

page 40 of 55

161. In the circumstances, the evidence on record does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant interfered with the product culture in the manner alleged, or that her actions in relation to the suspected contamination constituted misconduct warranting termination of her employment. 162. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that this constituted a valid and fair reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment. 163. With regard to the allegation of absence from duty without notice, the Claimant testified that she had obtained permission from her supervisor to be away from work on 26th February 2025 and from 3rd to 4th March 2025 to attend a school function. This account was not controverted by RW1. 164. In the circumstances, the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the Claimant’s absence on the material dates was unauthorised or without notice. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent failed to prove to the requisite standard that the alleged absence from duty constituted a valid and fair reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment within the meaning of Sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act. 41

page 41 of 55

165. The Claimant further denied frustrating communication channels within the Company. She maintained that her communication lines remained open at all times and that she consistently communicated with her superiors and direct reportees. 166. It is noteworthy that, in the notice to show cause, the Claimant was specifically accused of blocking the telephone number of one of her colleagues due to alleged personal differences between them. It was alleged that, as a result, the colleague was unable to share his work report with her through the WhatsApp platform, as was the usual practice. 167. It is notable that the Respondent did not indicate when the alleged blocking occurred. This is particularly pertinent given that, as late as 4 th December 2024, the RW2, who was the complainant in this regard, was still able to communicate with the Claimant through WhatsApp. 168. Further, RW2 confirmed during cross-examination that he remained a member of the work WhatsApp group through which he could communicate with the Claimant and had not been removed from the group. He also confirmed that he was able to communicate with the Claimant through email. 42

page 42 of 55

169. In the circumstances, the evidence before the Court does not sufficiently establish that the Claimant blocked her colleague’s communication channels or otherwise frustrated communication within the Company in the manner alleged. 170. With regard to the allegations that the Claimant was hostile towards her colleagues, the Claimant stated that she first became aware of these allegations through the notice to show cause. 171. In support of its case, the Respondent produced written statements by David Kingori (RW2) and Moses Atondola, both of whom complained of a strained working relationship with the Claimant. 172. In their respective testimonies before the Court, RW2, RW3 and RW4 similarly described the difficulties they experienced in working with the Claimant. The common thread running through their evidence was that the Claimant’s conduct towards them adversely affected their ability to discharge their respective duties effectively. 173. On the basis of this evidence, it is apparent that the Claimant’s working relationship with several members of the Respondent’s staff had become considerably strained. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the relationship had 43

page 43 of 55

deteriorated to a level that affected the harmonious and effective functioning of the team. 174. This position is further supported by the report prepared by Dr. Vitalis (RW1) following a meeting he held with the Claimant and three (3) members of staff on 1st March 2025, following complaints raised by the Claimant concerning those members of staff. In the report, RW1 observed that the statements made by the three (3) staff members contradicted the account presented by the Claimant to the Respondent’s management. 175. In addition, RW1 stated in his report that, based on his own assessment, it was the Claimant who was frustrating the other members of staff and thereby undermining the optimal functioning of the team. 176. It is notable that, from the evidence of both RW1 and the Claimant, the two were acquainted and had been friends prior to the Claimant joining the Respondent’s employment. Indeed, both confirmed that RW1 was the person who recruited the Claimant into the Respondent’s employment. 177. Accordingly, in the event the other members of staff had unfairly accused the Claimant of being hostile or of fostering strained relationships in the workplace, it would reasonably have been expected that RW1, who had 44

page 44 of 55

previously been acquainted with and had recruited the Claimant, would have been inclined to support her account. His assessment that the Claimant was, in fact, contributing to the strained working relationships therefore lends credence to the Respondent’s case. 178. Section 45(2) of the Employment Act recognizes compatibility as one of the grounds upon which an employer may terminate an employment relationship. An employer is therefore entitled to take into account genuine and demonstrable incompatibility where it materially affects the employee’s ability to work effectively with colleagues and the proper functioning of the workplace. 179. In light of the circumstances herein, and having regard to the pivotal role occupied by the Claimant within the Respondent’s organisation, the Court has considered the totality of the evidence and is persuaded that the Respondent established that the Claimant had become incompatible with members of staff with whom she was required to work closely. This incompatibility is what the Respondent characterised as hostility on the part of the Claimant towards her colleagues. The resulting deterioration in the Claimant’s working relationships with her colleagues had evidently adversely affected the effective functioning and cohesion of the team. 45

page 45 of 55

180. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant’s termination was founded on a valid and fair reason. Procedural fairness? 181. In addition to establishing the validity and fairness of the reason for termination, an employer is required under Section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act to demonstrate that the employee was subjected to a fair procedure before termination. The specific procedural safeguards are set out under Section 41 of the Employment Act. In this regard, the employer is required to explain to the employee, in a language the employee understands, the allegations or grounds contemplated for termination and to accord the employee an opportunity to respond, in the presence of a shop floor union representative or a fellow employee of the employee’s choice. 182. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Claimant was served with a notice to show cause which she responded to. It is also common ground that she was subsequently invited to a disciplinary hearing, which she attended and at which she was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the disciplinary panel. 46

page 46 of 55

183. The Claimant, however, took issue with the fairness of the process on the ground that she was not furnished with the witness statements made by the members of staff who had complained against her, or with the other evidentiary material relied upon against her. She contended that, as a consequence, she was denied a proper opportunity to confront and respond to the allegations made against her. 184. The Respondent did not controvert this contention. Indeed, RW1 stated during cross-examination that he could not recall whether the witness statements had been furnished to the Claimant. He further confirmed that his report formed part of the investigations which he presented to the Respondent’s management. 185. It is therefore apparent that the statements made by the Claimant’s colleagues, which contained serious allegations against her, were not furnished to her before the disciplinary hearing. Similarly, RW1’s investigative report was not shared with the Claimant ahead of the disciplinary hearing. 186. The importance of these documents cannot be understated. Why do I say so? The allegations contained in the witness statements and RW1’s report formed part of the basis upon which the disciplinary process was commenced. Indeed, 47

page 47 of 55

the allegations featured in the notice to show cause and ultimately constituted some of the reasons relied upon for terminating the Claimant’s employment. 187. Consequently, the statements and RW1’s report were material to the determination of the Claimant’s culpability and ought to have been availed to her before the disciplinary hearing. This would have enabled her to understand the evidence against her, consider the allegations made by her colleagues and prepare an adequate response. 188. The Respondent did not provide any plausible explanation for withholding the statements and RW1’s report from the Claimant before the disciplinary hearing. Consequently, the Court is led to conclude that the Claimant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond meaningfully to the evidentiary material relied upon against her. 189. On this issue, I am guided by the decision in Rebecca Ann Maina & 2 Others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2014] eKLR, in which the Court held that the employee is entitled to documents in the possession of the employer which would assist them in preparing their defence. 48

page 48 of 55

190. Consequently, in the present case, the Court finds that the Respondent compromised the fairness of the disciplinary process by withholding crucial evidentiary documents from the Claimant. 191. The Claimant further challenged the participation of Dr. Vitalis (RW1) in the appeal hearing on the ground that he was not an impartial decision-maker. 192. As stated herein, RW1 prepared a report following his meeting with the Claimant and other members of staff and subsequently presented that report to the Respondent’s management. The said report formed part of the investigative material from which some of the allegations against the Claimant were drawn. RW1 therefore assumed the role of an investigator and was, in effect, also a potential witness in relation to matters arising from those investigations. 193. Notwithstanding his investigative role, RW1 participated in the appeal hearing and was involved in determining the Claimant’s appeal against the disciplinary decision. This raises a legitimate concern regarding the impartiality of the appeal process. 194. Indeed, RW1 himself confirmed during cross-examination that he did not sit on the original disciplinary panel because the Claimant had raised concerns 49

page 49 of 55

regarding his alleged bias. Therefore, I cannot help but question why, having regard to the same concerns, he subsequently participated in determining the Claimant’s appeal. 195. Procedural fairness extends beyond the mere issuance of a notice to show cause and the convening of a disciplinary hearing. It encompasses the broader requirements of natural justice, including the right to an impartial decisionmaker. The requirement of impartiality is intended not only to guard against actual bias but also against circumstances giving rise to a reasonable perception or apprehension of bias. 196. In the present case, RW1’s prior involvement in the investigation, preparation of the report relied upon by the Respondent, and subsequent participation in determining the Claimant’s appeal gave rise to an appearance of bias. This is more so given that the Claimant had already complained to RW1 on 3rd March 2025 regarding the manner in which he had handled the meeting held the previous day. 197. Viewed cumulatively, the failure to furnish the Claimant with material evidentiary documents before the disciplinary hearing and the participation of RW1 in determining her appeal rendered the disciplinary process procedurally unfair. To this end, the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 50

page 50 of 55

procedural fairness contemplated under Sections 41 and 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act. 198. Accordingly, the Court finds that the disciplinary process was procedurally flawed notwithstanding the existence of a valid and fair reason for termination. Ultimately, the Claimant’s termination from employment was procedurally unfair and therefore unlawful. Reliefs? 199. Having found that, although the Respondent established the existence of a valid and fair reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment, it nevertheless failed to comply with the requirements of a fair hearing, the Court awards the Claimant compensation equivalent to two (2) months’ salary. In determining the quantum of compensation, the Court has taken into account, inter alia, the relatively short duration of the employment relationship and the Claimant’s own contribution to the circumstances leading to the termination of her employment. 200. The claim for unpaid half salary for March 2025 succeeds for the reason that in the notice to show cause dated 10th March 2025, through which the Claimant was suspended and placed on half salary, the Respondent did not disclose the 51

page 51 of 55

basis upon which the Claimant was to be paid at half salary. In particular, the Respondent did not identify any provision of its Human Resource Manual stipulating that an employee on suspension is not entitled to full salary. 201. Similarly, the Claimant is entitled to salary up to 23 rd April 2025, being the date on which her employment was terminated. Although the Respondent exhibited the Claimant’s pay slip in court, there was no evidence demonstrating that the salary reflected therein was actually remitted to the Claimant’s bank account. 202. The Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the repair of the Respondent’s faulty water pump succeeds to the extent of Kshs. 7,500.00. The receipts produced by the Claimant amount to Kshs. 17,500.00, while she acknowledged having received Kshs. 10,000.00 from the Respondent. Therefore, the unreimbursed balance is Kshs. 7,500.00. 203. The claim for unpaid house allowance is not merited. Here is why. It is evident from the letter of offer dated 14th November 2023 that the Claimant’s remuneration was consolidated at Kshs. 220,000.00 per month, inclusive of Kshs. 20,000.00 designated as house allowance. The Claimant’s pay slips for January and February 2025 confirm that she was paid the consolidated salary of 52

page 52 of 55

Kshs. 220,000.00 per month. Further, under cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that she received a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs. 220,000.00. 204. Accordingly, the claim for unpaid house allowance fails and is dismissed. 205. The Claimant is entitled to a certificate of service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act, the employment relationship between the parties being undisputed. The Respondent has not advanced any plausible basis for withholding the certificate. Orders 206. In the final analysis, the Court enters Judgment in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent in the following manner: (a) A declaration that the termination of the Claimant from employment was procedurally flawed and unlawful. (b) The Claimant is awarded the sum of Kshs 440,000.00 being compensatory damages equivalent to two (2) months of her gross salary. (c) The Claimant is awarded Kshs 100,000.00 in respect of unpaid half salary for March 2025. (d) The Claimant is awarded Kshs 168,666.67 being prorated salary for the period up to and including 23rd April 2025. 53

page 53 of 55

(e) The Claimant is awarded Kshs 7,500.00 as reimbursement of expenses incurred in repairing the Respondent’s faulty water pump. (f) The total award is Kshs 716,166.67. (g) Interest shall accrue on the amount in (f) at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full. (h) The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit. 207. The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with her certificate of service within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nyeri this 25th day of September 2026. ……………………………… STELLA RUTTO JUDGE In the presence of: For the Claimant Mr. Lumumba For the Respondent Ms. Wanja Court Assistant Ndati ORDER 54

page 54 of 55

In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. STELLA RUTTO JUDGE 55

page 55 of 55