Johannes Petrus Martinus Van Der Voort v HBM Flowers Kenya Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a farm manager's dismissal unfair because the employer couldn't prove its reasons and gave only 24 hours' notice of the disciplinary hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.When did the employment relationship between the parties commence?
- 2.Whether the Respondent has proved to the requisite standard that it had a valid and fair reason for terminating the Claimant's employment
- 3.Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness prior to the termination of his employment
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Claim
Key legal issues
#Commencement date of the employment relationship
Employment commenced on 1st September 2024, not 29th February 2024; the earlier arrangement was in substance a consultancy
Although the document was titled 'Contract of Employment', it described the Claimant as 'contractor' and the Respondent as 'client', remuneration was subject to withholding tax, and the Claimant invoiced through Timau Seedlings and Consultation Limited from January to September 2024. Applying ILO Recommendation No. 198 and Kenneth Kimani Mburu, the substance of the relationship prevailed over its label.
Valid and fair reason for termination
Respondent failed to prove a valid and fair reason; termination was substantively unfair
The Respondent alleged failure to implement the Scenario 3.1 strategic crop plan but never produced the plan or showed it was finalised, communicated to the Claimant, or had timelines and KPIs. Quality concerns were not independently attributed to the Claimant, as consignments had been cleared by KEPHIS and similar complaints persisted after his termination.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Termination was procedurally unfair; notice of the disciplinary hearing was inadequate
The Claimant was told on 6th August 2025, at 16:45, that a meeting set for 7th August was a disciplinary hearing, giving roughly 24 hours' notice. Following Nebert Mandala Ombajo, such short notice on serious allegations impaired his ability to prepare, and his attendance did not waive the employer's Section 41 obligations.
House allowance entitlement
Claimant entitled to house allowance at 15% of basic salary per Section 31(1) of the Employment Act
The pay slip showed basic pay with house allowance at 0.00, and there was no indication the Respondent provided housing. Following Grain Pro Kenya Inc. Ltd v Andrew Waithaka Kiragu, house allowance was computed at 15% of basic salary for the employment period.
Legal principles established
#- Courts are not bound by parties' characterisation of a relationship as consultancy or employment; the substance of the arrangement prevails
- An employer bears the statutory burden of proving a valid and fair reason for termination on a balance of probabilities
- Approximately 24 hours' notice of a disciplinary hearing on serious allegations is inadequate and prejudices the employee's defence
- Attendance at a disciplinary hearing does not cure prejudice caused by inadequate notice; the fairness obligation rests with the employer
- House allowance cannot be inferred as consolidated into basic salary absent express provision, regardless of remuneration quantum
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was both substantively and procedurally unfair
- 2.Compensation of EUR 22,500, being three months' salary
- 3.Kshs. 1,546,051.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice and salary for 11 days worked in August 2025
- 4.EUR 62.50 for accrued annual leave equivalent to 0.25 days
- 5.EUR 12,787.50 as house allowance for 11 months and 11 days
- 6.Interest at court rates on the awards from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 8.Respondent to issue a certificate of service within 14 days
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 and Labour Relations Act (first-instance employment cause)
Relief refused
#Repatriation expenses of Kshs 520,000
Claimant was already resident in Kenya when engaged; no repatriation expenses incurred or payable
Unremitted NHIF/SHIF deductions
Evidence, including testimony of a SHA officer, confirmed deductions were duly remitted
Aggravated and exemplary damages
No sufficient basis established beyond compensation for unfair termination
Payment for 3 accrued leave days
Claimant had taken 19 of 19.25 accrued days; balance was 0.25 days
12 months' compensation for unfair termination
Award reduced to 3 months' compensation considering the relatively short duration of employment
Costs
The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit.
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.
Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent
A declaration is hereby issued that the termination of the Claimant's employment was both substantively and procedurally unfair
The Claimant is awarded compensation in the sum of EUR 22,500, being the equivalent of three (3) months' salary
The Claimant shall also have the costs of the suit
The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a certificate of service within 14 days from the date of this Judgment
the Court finds that, notwithstanding its description as an employment contract, the parties' relationship was, in substance, a consultancy arrangement prior to 1st September 2024
The disciplinary process, taken as a whole, must embody the essential elements of procedural fairness, including prior and adequate notice of the hearing
Issues in the judgment
#Anachronistic COVID-19 delivery order referencing 2020 directions appended to a judgment dated 2026
Judgment date printed as 25th September 2026, more than a year after filing in September 2025; date may be a typographical error
Respondent's cited authorities unverifiable on Kenya Law Reports and other authorities mis-cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johannes Petrus Martinus Van Der Voort v HBM Flowers Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E033 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2639/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.