Mwangi v Red Lands Roses Limited (Cause 1318 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 212 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer unfairly fired an accountant over a flawed performance appraisal and denied him a proper hearing, awarding six months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent has proved that there was a justifiable reason to terminate the employment of the Claimant
- 2.Whether the Claimant was taken through a fair process prior to termination
- 3.Is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought?
Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for termination for poor performance
Termination not substantively justified because the appraisal flowed from an irregular process conducted by persons not responsible for the Claimant's supervision
Section 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act require the employer to prove a valid and fair reason. Although the Claimant scored 48.6% and did not object to the appraisal areas in his response to the show cause letter, the appraisal was conducted by the Executive Director and Human Resource Manager contrary to the Respondent's own Performance Management Policy, which vests appraisal in directly supervising managers. The Chief Accountant's mere endorsement could not cure the irregularity.
Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act
Termination procedurally unfair as no oral hearing was held despite the Claimant's request
Section 41(1) entitles an employee to have a colleague or union representative present during the explanation, which can only be achieved through an oral hearing. Following the Court of Appeal in Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui, the court held that the exchange of letters between employer and employee does not satisfy the minimum standards of fair procedure under Section 41 where the employee faces loss of career and livelihood. The Claimant's request to discuss the appraisal with his supervisors was ignored.
Reliefs
Compensatory damages of six months' gross salary awarded, plus interest, costs and a Certificate of Service
Having found the termination substantively unjustified and procedurally unfair, the court exercised discretion under Section 49 of the Employment Act, taking into account the length of the employment relationship and the manner of termination, to award the equivalent of six months' gross salary rather than the twelve months claimed. A Certificate of Service follows as the employment relationship is admitted.
Legal principles established
#- An appraisal conducted by persons not directly responsible for the employee's supervision is irregular and cannot found a valid reason for termination
- Section 41 of the Employment Act requires an oral hearing before termination on grounds of poor performance; an exchange of letters does not suffice
Court orders
#- 1.Compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 834,000.00 being equivalent to six (6) months of gross salary
- 2.Interest on the damages at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 4.Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007
Relief refused
#Compensatory damages of Kshs 1,676,760/= as pleaded
The court awarded six months' gross salary instead of the twelve months claimed
Costs
The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit
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.
All things considered, I am led to conclude that the appraisal of the Claimant as undertaken and having lacked objectivity cannot be said to have formed a valid and fair reason for the Claimant's termination within the meaning of Section 45(2) (a) and (b) of the Act. To this end, the Claimant's termination was not substantively justified.
It thus follows that this can only be achieved through an oral hearing.
Ultimately, the Claimant's termination was not procedurally fair hence was unlawful.
Against this background, I enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent and he is awarded: a. Compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 834,000.00 being equivalent to six (6) months of his gross salary.
Since the employment relationship has been admitted, the Claimant is entitled to a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act.
Issues in the judgment
#Respondent's name not stated in the judgment excerpt; parties identified only as Claimant and Respondent
Case number and neutral citation not stated in the judgment excerpt
Termination letter contains typographical errors ('conrtact', 'efiect')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangi v Red Lands Roses Limited (Cause 1318 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in excerpt (Statement of Claim filed 20th August 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/212/eng@2024-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.