Jared Onyango Agimba v Victory Farms Limited

unfair termination of employment; and whether he is entitled to costs and interest of the claim. 2. He contends that he was employed by the Respondent as a Project and Business Development Manager for the Boo Bay farm on 17th February 2020, serving until 21 st September 2024 when his employment was abruptly terminated. He avers that the termination of employment was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Consequently, he sought: (a) A declaration that the termination of employment was unfair and unlawful; (b) Reinstatement without loss of benefits; (c) Kshs. 190,000/- as pay in lieu of notice; (d) Kshs. 513,000/- being the annual bonus compensation for the year 2024; (e) Kshs. 2,280,000/- as compensation for unfair termination; (f) Kshs. 95,000/- for 15 days’ unpaid leave; (g) Costs of the suit; (h) Interest; and (i) Any other relief the court may deem fit. Page 2 of 13

page 2 of 13

3. The Respondent opposed the claim through a Statement of Response dated 23rd September 2025. It contends that, contrary to the Claimant’s assertions, he was neither diligent nor effective in the discharge of his duties. In particular, it avers that he engaged in fraudulent conduct, was negligent and poorly managed projects assigned to him, thereby justifying his summary dismissal. The Respondent further contends that the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness, highlighting that he was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 27th August 2024, attended a disciplinary hearing on 11th September 2024 and was subsequently summarily dismissed from employment on 21 st September 2024. Additionally, the Respondent avers that it accorded the Claimant ample opportunity to pursue his appeal but he opted not to pursue the same, resulting in confirmation of his dismissal. It therefore urges the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. 4. At the hearing, the Claimant testified on his own behalf, while Ms. Anne Onege, the Respondent’s Human Resource Page 3 of 13

page 3 of 13

Manager, testified on its behalf. The Claimant stated that he earned a monthly salary of Kshs. 190,000/- and was eligible for an annual bonus equivalent to 30% of his annual salary, subject to appraisal of his scorecard. He acknowledged receiving suspension letters dated 12 th August 2024 and 26th August 2024, a Notice to Show Cause dated 27 th August 2024 and an invitation dated 5th September 2024 to attend a disciplinary hearing, which he subsequently attended. The Claimant further testified that, although he appealed against his summary dismissal by a letter dated 27 th September 2024, the appeal was not heard because the Respondent declined his request for a virtual hearing, notwithstanding that the disciplinary hearing had been conducted both physically and virtually. He testified that the scope of his duties was limited to identifying business premises and landlords, obtaining licenses for shops, seeking approvals for leases from seniors, reviewing renewal and approval of leases but not to payment of rent which was the mandate of the finance department. He stated that he had discharged his duties diligently, noting that he had overseen an increase in the number of branches from 20 to 90. He also narrated Page 4 of 13

page 4 of 13

that the contractual requirement for two months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof had not been observed. He explained that he was unable to attend the appeal hearing physically because he was attending to his ailing mother. In support of his case, he produced the documents contained in his list of documents dated 3rd March 2025. 5. During cross-examination, the Claimant testified that he last proceeded on leave in 2023. He further acknowledged that the tiling of the Webuye shop had been undertaken by the landlord and not Decaff, and that Decaff had refunded the money paid to it. He also agreed that tiling fell outside his branding responsibilities. Nevertheless, he remained adamant that he had never recommended payment of rent in excess of the agreed rates. 6. The Respondent’s witness, on her part, testified that the Claimant’s area of operation extended to such other locations as the Respondent might direct from time to time. She produced the documents contained in the Respondent’s list of documents dated 3rd March 2025. Page 5 of 13

page 5 of 13

7. Upon cross-examination, she stated that the Claimant failed to avail himself for hearing of the appeal. She explained that his request for a virtual hearing was declined because appeals by senior officers were ordinarily conducted face-toface. She further testified that the Claimant was not entitled to service pay because he was a member of NSSF. Upon conclusion of the hearing both parties filed written submissions. Claimant’s Submissions 8. In support of his claim the Claimant identifies the following issues for determination. i) Whether the termination of his employment was fair; and ii) Whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought. 9. On the first issue the Claimant submits that allegations in the Notice to Show Cause were unsubstantiated. He asserts that there was no evidence from the said landlords and members of DECAFF proving that he had engaged in fraudulent activity or was professionally negligent. To buttress his position, he draws attention to his evidence that Page 6 of 13

page 6 of 13

excess monies had been refunded to the Respondent and that tiling had been done by the landlords themselves. He further points to the Respondent’s witness’s acknowledgement that no complaints had been raised against him by his seniors and that he had consistently received annual bonuses on account of his performance. Reliance is placed on Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission [2013] eKLR, where the court held: “For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness. Substantive justification has to do with establishment of a valid reason for the termination while procedural fairness addresses the procedure adopted by the employer to effect the termination.” 10. On the reliefs sought, the Claimant submits that the same ought to be granted as pleaded. With respect to pay in lieu of notice, he maintains that he was entitled to two months’ salary pursuant to paragraphs 12.6.1 and 12.6.2 of his employment contract. He submits that the contract was binding upon the parties and urges the Court to enforce its Page 7 of 13

page 7 of 13

terms pursuant to section 36 of the Employment Act and Rule 16 of the Employment (General) Rules, 2014. 11. On the annual bonus compensation for the year 2024, the Claimant submits that he is entitled to the same having garnered 80% via the appraisal score card for February 2024 as evinced by CEX 9. He draws attention to CEX 11 dated 16th February 2023 evincing receipt of a bonus of Kshs. 348,443/-. He further asserts that the bonuses were issued yearly regardless of the month of the year. As for unpaid leave days he maintains that he is entitled to the same, pointing to his evidence in cross-examination that he had not proceeded on leave from 2023 to 2024. Respondent’s Submissions 12. On its part the Respondent identifies the following issues for determination: (a) Whether the Claimant’s employment was unfairly terminated; and (b) Whether he is entitled to the remedies sought. Page 8 of 13

page 8 of 13

13. On the first issue, the Respondent submits that the Claimant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that an unlawful termination had occurred, as contemplated under section 47(5) of the Employment Act. It contends that, in the circumstances, no corresponding burden arose upon it to justify the termination. As regards procedural fairness, the Respondent relies on the Claimant’s own evidence under cross-examination that he was issued with a Notice to Show Cause, responded to it, was invited to and attended a disciplinary hearing accompanied by Mr. Lawrence Odindo Obar, a Sales Manager, and was given an opportunity to present his case. The Respondent further submits that, following his dismissal, the Claimant failed to respond to the email inviting him to attend the hearing of his appeal. 14. On substantive justification, the Respondent submits that it satisfied the threshold under section 43(2) of the Employment Act, having terminated the Claimant for reasons that it genuinely believed to exist. It relies on Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others [2019] eKLR, where the Court underscored that the Page 9 of 13

page 9 of 13

applicable standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities and that an employer is only required to establish that the reasons for termination genuinely existed. In support of its position, the Respondent highlights the Claimant’s role as the link between the Respondent and its suppliers as well as his refusal to provide the contact details of Decaff. It further contends that the Claimant engaged in fraudulent conduct by causing payment to be made to Decaff for tiling works which were, in fact, undertaken by the landlord. The Respondent also refers to the disciplinary minutes, which it submits demonstrate that the Claimant shared invoices with Decaff but was unable to produce evidence of any communication from Decaff. On that basis, it maintains that the decision to summarily dismiss him was justified. 15. On the remedies sought, the Respondent reiterates that they should not issue as the termination of employment was procedurally and substantially sound. In respect of pay in lieu of notice, the Respondent submits that the claim is untenable because the termination was lawful and the entitlement is not supported by the contract. It further Page 10 of 13

page 10 of 13

argues that, having been summarily dismissed, the Claimant was not entitled to notice or pay in lieu thereof by virtue of section 44(1) of the Employment Act. 16. On the claim for the 2024 annual bonus, the Respondent submits that the Claimant laid no legal basis for the claim. It contends that he did not qualify for the bonus because he did not complete the year under review. Moreover, it highlights the fact that as per clause 5.1.1.1 of the contract, the bonus was at the discretion of management and was to be paid annually. With respect to compensation for unfair termination, the Respondent reiterates that the remedy is unavailable because the Claimant’s employment was lawfully terminated. 17. On the claim for unpaid leave days, the Respondent submits that the Claimant did not establish that he had applied for leave and been denied. It further contends that he failed to identify the specific period to which the claim related. In contrast, the Respondent maintains that the Claimant’s leave days had been paid, as demonstrated by his September 2024 payslip, which reflected payment for 35 Page 11 of 13

page 11 of 13

leave days. As regards service pay, the Respondent submits that the claim is not payable because the Claimant was a member of NSSF, a fact he acknowledged under crossexamination. It relies on section 35(6)(d) of the Employment Act and Nathan Ogada Atiaga v David Engineering Ltd [2015] KEELRC 75 KLR. It further submits that, in any event, the contract of employment did not provide for service pay. Finally, on costs, the Respondent submits that it is entitled to the same, having demonstrated that the Claimant’s case is unmeritorious. It therefore urges the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. Disposition 18. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent and served until his dismissal. Prior to termination, the Claimant was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 27 th August 2024. He responded to it and was invited to and attended a disciplinary hearing on 11th September 2024. His defence was considered and the Respondent summarily dismissed the Claimant from employment on 21st September 2024. The Page 12 of 13

page 12 of 13

Claimant had a right to pursue an appeal against termination but he opted not to pursue the same. 19. In my considered view, the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness prior to termination. There was cause for the disciplinary process as the Claimant admits that there was some issue with the tiling of some property. It was evident there was a breach by the employee resulting in termination upon consideration of all material before the employer. As the Claimant has failed to surmount the legal hurdles imposed by section 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, there is no remedy that he can obtain. The Claimant’s suit is dismissed albeit with no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 21st day of September 2026 Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb. JUDGE Page 13 of 13

page 13 of 13