Nyangweso v Roto Moulders Limited (Cause 437 of 2019) [2022] KEELRC 4147 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a manager's firing for poor performance was unfair because the employer had no appraisals, targets or proper disciplinary process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether termination of the Claimant's employment was fair in substance (valid reason)
- 2.Whether termination was procedurally fair
- 3.Whether the Claimant was discriminated against
- 4.Whether the Claimant merits the remedies sought, including terminal dues/severance pay and general damages
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination
The Respondent did not establish valid and fair reasons for termination.
The employer produced shifting and inconsistent grounds: 21 broad areas of concern, then 4 on-the-spot disciplinary charges, then 9 reasons in the termination letter, none matching. There was no structured appraisal system, no show-cause letter, and no evidence supporting the charges. The Claimant's consistent salary increments, thanking him for his contribution, contradicted the alleged poor performance.
Procedural fairness of termination
Procedure was flawed under Section 41 of the Employment Act.
There was no letter to show cause and no charges preceding the disciplinary hearing. Charges were raised on the floor of the hearing, not specifically put to the Claimant with an answer recorded on each, and no evidence supported the accusations.
Discrimination claim
Claim fails for lack of evidence.
The Claimant was dismissed for his role as Country Sales Manager and could not compare himself with subordinates who did not share his role; no evidence of discrimination was adduced.
Legal principles established
#- Good performance is an implied term of every contract of employment even absent an express clause.
- An employer must establish valid and fair reasons under Sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act and follow fair procedure under Section 41, including a show-cause letter and specific charges put to the employee.
- An employer relying on poor performance must have a structured performance appraisal system, job description, targets and performance improvement plan against which the employee's performance is weighed.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay the Claimant 5½ months' salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 1,921,040
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes under Sections 41, 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Compensation for discrimination and compensation for unfair termination pleaded at Kshs 41,911,365.04 each
Figures unclear and unsupported in law and fact; prayers rejected from the outset
Terminal dues/severance pay at Kshs 873,201.05
No evidence or legal/contractual foundation identified
General damages for unlawful and unfair termination at Kshs 1,746,402 (5 years' salary)
Indistinguishable from the compensation prayers and unsupported
Costs
Costs to the Claimant
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Good performance is implied in all contracts of employment, as is other unwritten and presumed terms, such as duty of care; health and safety; duty to pay the salary; trust and confidence; and loyalty to the Employer.
The Court does not find a structured performance appraisal system, job description, performance targets and Performance Improvement Plan, put in place by the Respondent, against which the Claimant’s performance was weighed, and found wanting in the end, to justify termination.
It is declared that termination was unfair.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant 5½ months’ salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs 1,921,040.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment itself notes an ambiguity in the pleaded compensation figure
Claimant's length of service stated inconsistently within the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyangweso v Roto Moulders Limited (Cause 437 of 2019) [2022] KEELRC 4147 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4147/eng@2022-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.