Mageto v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E714 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1063 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's tax authority unfairly sacked a 20-year employee over a performance threshold that was never in her signed contract, winning her Sh5.93 million.
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 unfairly terminated the Claimant's employment?
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought?
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the termination process
The Respondent complied with sections 35(1) and 41 of the Employment Act; the process was procedurally fair.
The Claimant was issued a show cause letter, responded in writing, was invited to an oral disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied by a colleague, attended the hearing, was informed of the right of appeal, and exercised it. Shortcomings in the appeal handling did not render the process unfair.
Substantive fairness - validity of the reasons for termination
The Respondent failed to prove valid and fair reasons for termination; the performance validation was not properly conducted and the 90% threshold was not in the executed contract.
The PIP lapsed without evaluation and the redeployment made its targets redundant. The validation of the end-year appraisal was inconclusive - the appraisal template had no names, signatures or dates of validators, and no panel member testified to rebut the Claimant's account. The 90% minimum threshold came from a Newsflash guideline, not the signed Performance Contract under which 84.52% rated as good performance attracting no disciplinary sanction.
Appropriate remedies
Reinstatement refused for lack of exceptional circumstances; compensation of 10 months' gross wages awarded given about 20 years of service.
Reinstatement is discretionary and granted only in exceptional circumstances, none of which were pleaded or evidenced. Factoring the length of service of about 20 years and a gross salary at separation of Kshs 593,000/-, 10 months' gross wages was appropriate.
Legal principles established
#- Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act place the burden on the employer to prove the validity and fairness of the reasons for termination
- Where a Performance Improvement Plan lapses without evaluation or validation, the benefit of doubt goes to the employee that they successfully completed it
- Where an executed employment contract sets performance rating thresholds, an employer cannot rely on an unpublished internal guideline threshold not part of the contract to justify termination
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair
- 2.Compensation of Kshs 5,930,000/- (equivalent to 10 months' gross wages)
- 3.The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 21 days
- 4.The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- 5.The Claimant to have costs
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 unfair termination of employment (Employment Act, 2007)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
Reinstatement is only granted in exceptional circumstances, which the Claimant did not plead or prove
Costs
The Claimant to have costs.
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.
The Court finds and declares that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair and awards her: (i) Compensation Kshs 5,930,000/-
The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 21 days.
The Court can conclude that the Respondent did not prove valid and fair reasons to terminate the Claimant's employment.
the benefit of doubt must be given to the Claimant that she successfully completed the Plan.
The Guidelines did not provide that a good performance would be subjected to disciplinary action or termination of employment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mageto v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E714 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 1 September 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1063/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.