Ngila v Kenya Breweries Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E775 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 455 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Breweries lost an unfair dismissal case because it couldn't prove the employee actually missed agreed targets or was helped to improve before being fired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there were valid reasons to warrant the claimant's termination
- 2.Whether the claimant was subjected to due process before being terminated
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Validity of reasons for termination
The respondent failed to prove valid reasons for the dismissal; no evidence that agreed targets were not delivered or that the claimant was given an opportunity to improve
The dismissal letter cited gross negligence. The court held that where dismissal is grounded on negligence or poor performance, the employer must prove the employee failed agreed targets, must have a policy or practice for measuring performance, and must show measures to help the employee improve. The respondent did none of these, so the burden under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act was not discharged.
Procedural fairness (due process)
The claimant was accorded due process; she was issued show-cause letters, attended a disciplinary hearing, and was allowed to respond to the charges
The minutes of the disciplinary hearing produced in court showed the charges were read to the claimant and she responded. She was invited by letter dated 4th October 2019 to a hearing on 8th October 2019 and signed the minutes. Section 41 was therefore satisfied despite the substantive unfairness finding.
Remedies for unfair termination
Compensation of 6 months' salary awarded (reduced because procedure was fair), plus 62 days' unchallenged leave pay
Section 45(2) renders termination unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid reason. Compensation under Section 49 was fixed at 6 months because due process was followed. The 62 days' accrued leave claim was not objected to by the respondent and was awarded as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer terminating an employee for poor performance or negligence must demonstrate the measures put in place to assess and support the employee's improvement, and must show that agreed performance targets were not met
- Where the employer fails to prove a valid reason for termination, the dismissal is unfair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, even if procedure was fair
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the claimant's dismissal was unfair and unjustified
- 2.Respondent to pay compensation for unfair dismissal of 6 months' salary (6 x 223,496 = Kshs 1,340,976)
- 3.Respondent to pay 62 days' accrued leave pay (62/30 x 223,496 = Kshs 461,892)
- 4.Total award of Kshs 1,802,868 less statutory deductions
- 5.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
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 (Employment Act, 2007; unfair termination claim under Sections 41, 43, 44, 45)
Relief refused
#Compensation at the maximum 12 months' salary (Kshs 2,681,952) as sought
Although the court found the dismissal unfair, it awarded only 6 months' compensation because the claimant was accorded due process before termination
Certificate of Service as prayed
Not addressed or awarded in the final orders of the court
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
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.
In view of my reasons above, it is my finding that the respondents have not discharged the burden to prove that they had valid reasons to dismiss the claimant.
In terms of section 41 of the Employment Act 2007 the claimant was given an opportunity to present her case and so the claimant was accorded due process.
In view of the fact that the respondents were unable to establish the existence of valid reason leading to the claimants dismissal, it is my finding that the claimant's dismissal was unfair and unjustified. I declare it so.
Total awarded = 1,802,868/- less statutory deductions.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Respondent 'did not object' to the 62 days' leave claim, whereas the Respondent's submissions stated the actual leave balance was 43.79 days, not 62, and cited authorities requiring proof of the leave days
The Respondent's submissions are dated 23rd January 2023 but rely on witness statements and documents dated later (25th and 30th November 2023) - an apparent date inconsistency
Two different start dates of employment appear in the judgment (12th August 2014 contract effective 11th August 2014, versus engagement on 12th August 2014 stated in the Memorandum of Claim recitals)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngila v Kenya Breweries Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E775 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). null (not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/455/eng@2025-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.