Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedEmployment and Labour Relations Cause E036 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2572 (KLR)

Chege v AAA Growers Limited

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2026
3,353 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Claimant, employed as Avocado Orchard Farm Manager at Simba Farm, sued AAA Growers Limited for unlawful and unfair termination, seeking leave pay, salary for days worked, compensation under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, salary for the unexpired six months of his two-year contract, general damages for workplace harassment, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The Respondent maintained the termination was performance-based and lawful, acknowledging only Kshs.222,581 for 23 days' salary and Kshs.80,000 in accrued leave. The court framed three issues: substantive and procedural fairness, entitlement to relief, and costs. Applying sections 41, 43, 45(2) and 47(5) of the Employment Act, and following Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge Ltd, the court found the Respondent failed both the substantive and procedural tests: no disciplinary hearing was conducted after the Claimant answered the show-cause letter, no objective performance appraisal system was applied, and no opportunity to improve was given. The poor avocado yield was found not attributable to the Claimant. Judgment was entered for the Claimant. The court awarded 28 days' leave pay (Kshs.331,333.30), salary for days worked (Kshs.222,581), and two months' salary as compensation (Kshs.700,000), and ordered issuance of a certificate of service within 30 days. Claims for the remaining six months' contract salary and harassment damages were refused as unproved. The Claimant received costs; the total award of Kshs.1,253,914.30 attracts interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination for poor performance was substantively and procedurally fair

Holding

Termination was unfair; no disciplinary hearing was held and no objective appraisal system was applied

Reasoning

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.

p. 7
02

Burden of justifying the termination

Holding

The Respondent failed to discharge the employer's burden under sections 43 and 47(5)

Reasoning

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.

p. 7
03

Entitlement to reliefs

Holding

Leave pay, salary for days worked and two months' compensation awarded; remainder-of-contract salary and harassment damages refused

Reasoning

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.

p. 7

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. 1.Award of 28 days' leave pay of Kshs.331,333.30 under section 28 of the Employment Act
  2. 2.Award of salary for days worked totalling Kshs.222,581
  3. 3.Compensation of two months' salary (Kshs.700,000) under section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
  4. 4.Respondent to issue certificate of service pursuant to section 51 of the Employment Act within 30 days
  5. 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
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; sections 4 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

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.