Onyango v KCB Football Club (Cause E828 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2006 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KCB Football Club unfairly sacked its coach without a hearing, awarding him over Kshs 1.5 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 Claimant's termination on account of poor performance was fair and lawful
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Whether the court lacks jurisdiction over a dispute between a football coach and a club governed by KCB Constitution and FKF Constitution
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness in termination for poor performance
Termination without a show-cause letter or fair disciplinary hearing under section 41 was procedurally unfair
RW1 admitted no notice to show cause was issued and no certificate of service given. The contract provided for quarterly reviews, but the claimant was terminated before the season ended with only one loss in the remaining 9 matches. Section 41 requires an employer to explain the reasons and allow the employee a representative. None of this was done, so the termination was procedurally unfair.
Substantive justification for termination for poor performance
The respondent failed to prove a valid reason as required by section 43 of the Employment Act
The employer produced no quarterly reports to demonstrate underperformance and could not explain the basis for the points target. Poor performance places a high evidential burden on the employer, including proof of an evaluation policy and measures to address poor performance. The respondent admitted the claimant was not subjected to a fair hearing and the reasons were not validly proved.
Jurisdiction objection based on club/FKF constitutions
The objection was not upheld; the court determined the employment claim
The respondent argued the dispute fell under the KCB Constitution and FKF Constitution with unexhausted internal remedies. The court did not address this objection in its analysis and proceeded to examine the evidence and determine the claim on its merits under the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- A termination for poor performance requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness, including a hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act
- The employer bears the burden of proving the reason for termination; failure to do so renders the termination unfair
Court orders
#- 1.1-month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 170,000/-
- 2.Compensation for unfair termination of 8 months' salary (8 x 170,000 = Kshs 1,360,000/-), total Kshs 1,530,000/- less statutory deductions
- 3.Claimant to be issued with a certificate of service
- 4.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of 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 under the Employment Act 2007 (jurisdiction objected to by Respondent but not upheld)
Relief refused
#12 months' compensation for unfair termination (Kshs 2,040,000)
Court found 8 months' salary adequate as compensation
Accrued leave (Kshs 68,000), leave allowance (Kshs 5,000) and win allowance
Not awarded in the final orders; no finding recorded on these heads
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
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.
I therefore find for the claimant and I award him as follows
Compensation for unfair termination and pegged on the fact the he was denied any hearing and his certificate of service, I find 8 months’ salary as adequate = 8x170,000=kshs 1,360,000/-
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
From the evidence above, it is clear that the claimant was not subjected to any fair disciplinary hearing as envisaged under section 41 of the Employment Act 2007
It is also admitted that the claimant was not subjected to a fair hearing and the reasons for dismissal was not validly proved as per section 43 of the Employment Act
Issues in the judgment
#Contract period and warning dates appear internally inconsistent: contract dated 11th October 2018 but claimant 'issued with a warning letter' in January 2018, while evidence refers to a letter of 10th December 2018
Termination dates are inconsistent: pleading avers a termination letter dated 25th April 2019 while evidence and submissions state employment was terminated on 6th June 2019, with 25th April 2019 described as a notice
Claimant pleaded the performance target as top 9, but in evidence testified the target was top 7
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v KCB Football Club (Cause E828 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2006 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2006/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.