Chege v AAA Growers Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing an employee for poor performance without a hearing or fair appraisal system is unlawful, awarding over Kshs.1.25 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 substantively justified and procedurally terminated the Claimant.
- 2.If (a) above is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought.
- 3.Who should bear the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether termination for poor performance was substantively and procedurally fair
Termination was unfair; no disciplinary hearing was held and no objective appraisal system was applied
The show-cause letter cited unsatisfactory performance, but the Claimant was never invited to a disciplinary hearing, a mandatory requirement under section 41. The Respondent applied no evaluation criteria and gave no opportunity to improve. RW1 conceded the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant's explanations. Poor yield following pruning was not attributable to the Claimant.
Burden of justifying the termination
The Respondent failed to discharge the employer's burden under sections 43 and 47(5)
Section 43 requires the employer to prove the reasons for termination; section 47(5) places the burden of justifying grounds on the employer. RW1 admitted he had no independent documents proving failure beyond what the Claimant produced, and the Respondent's witness was not an agriculturist.
Entitlement to reliefs
Leave pay, salary for days worked and two months' compensation awarded; remainder-of-contract salary and harassment damages refused
Having found unfair termination, the court awarded accrued leave under section 28 and salary for days worked, which the Respondent had partly acknowledged. Compensation was limited to two months' salary given the 17-month tenure. Future contract salary and harassment damages failed for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- Termination for poor performance requires proof of the standard expected, how it was measured, and opportunity to improve
- Without an objective performance appraisal system, termination for poor performance cannot be fair
- Fair termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.Award of 28 days' leave pay of Kshs.331,333.30 under section 28 of the Employment Act
- 2.Award of salary for days worked totalling Kshs.222,581
- 3.Compensation of two months' salary (Kshs.700,000) under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
- 4.Respondent to issue certificate of service pursuant to section 51 of the Employment Act within 30 days
- 5.Claimant awarded costs of the claim; total award Kshs.1,253,914.30 with interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; sections 4 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Salary for the remaining six months of the contract (Kshs.2,130,000)
Not proved; one is not entitled to payment for a period not served
General damages for harassment in the workplace
Allegations unproven; no witnesses called or reports made
Costs
The Claimant shall have the costs of the claim.
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 conclusion where the reason for termination of employment is poor performance the employer must demonstrate what standard was expected and how it was measured. There must be grounds to show how the employee failed to meet the standards and what opportunity he was given to improve.
The Respondent in this case failed to prove the twin tests of both substantive justification and procedural fairness. In the circumstances, the court finds the Claimant has proved a case for unlawful termination and so judgment is entered in his favour.
The Claimant shall have the costs of the claim and total award therefore is Kshs.1,253,914/30 with interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment.
Issues in the judgment
#Show-cause letter date given variously as 9th April, 8th April and 18th April 2025
Termination date confusion: pleadings say 23rd April 2025, evidence and Respondent say 23rd May 2025
Respondent's submissions cite the same CFC Stanbic case twice as two authorities
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chege v AAA Growers Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause E036 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2572/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.