Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Edwin Miano, was employed as a Business Development Manager at Stanbic Bank Kenya for 11 years and earned Kshs. 588,827/= per month. In 2021, the respondent placed him on a Performance Improvement Program (PIP) after he achieved only 4% of his annual targets by the end of 2020. Multiple performance review meetings were held between February and August 2021, with the claimant's year-to-date drawdowns remaining at 0%. Despite being given opportunities to improve and submit written representations, the respondent terminated his employment on 05.10.2021 citing 'consistent poor performance' under the Employment Act, 2007. The claimant argued the dismissal was unlawful, claiming no agreed targets existed and the disciplinary process was unfair. The court found the termination was based on genuine and valid reasons, deemed fair under the law, and dismissed the claim with each party bearing their own costs.
Issues
- The court assessed whether Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited adhered to the fair procedure for termination as outlined in Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, including the Performance Improvement Program (PIP) and disciplinary hearing process.
- The court determined whether the dismissal of Edwin Maina Miano by Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited for consistent poor performance was lawful and fair under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
Holdings
- The respondent was found to have complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act regarding notice and hearing requirements, and followed a fair disciplinary procedure as outlined in Section 45. The claimant acknowledged the fairness of the process during the hearing and failed to raise any new issues in his appeal.
- The court found that the claimant's dismissal was based on genuine and valid reasons under Section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007, and deemed fair under Section 45. The claimant's own testimony confirmed he was aware of his performance issues and participated in the disciplinary process, with no evidence of procedural unfairness.
- The court dismissed the claimant's suit and ordered that each party bear their own costs. This decision was influenced by the claimant's failure to demonstrate procedural unfairness and the court's acceptance of the respondent's evidence regarding consistent poor performance.
Remedies
- The court dismissed the claimant's suit for unlawful dismissal and denied all requested reliefs including compensatory damages, interest, and costs, finding the termination was fair and in accordance with the Employment Act.
- The court directed that each party bear their own costs of the suit, noting that while the claimant's performance issues were genuine, the costs would not be awarded to either side.
Legal Principles
- The court examined the fairness of the respondent's disciplinary process, emphasizing compliance with Section 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. The respondent provided the claimant with multiple performance improvement opportunities, written representations, and a disciplinary hearing, satisfying procedural fairness requirements. The claimant's own testimony confirmed he was given sufficient time and a fair process, with no evidence of harassment or procedural bias.
- The court addressed whether the claimant's legitimate expectation of continued employment was breached by the respondent's termination decision. The claimant argued that his dismissal violated this expectation given his 11-year employment history without prior performance issues. The court, however, found the termination justified under statutory grounds (Section 43(1)&(2) of the Employment Act, 2007) and that the claimant's legitimate expectation was not unreasonably frustrated.
Cited Statute
Employment Act, 2007
Judge Name
Byram Ongaya
Passage Text
- In conclusion, the suit is dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the suit.
- The Court particularly finds as follows: The claimant testified that he was given time to try to step up his performance... He confirmed he was invited to a hearing on 27.08.2021 per letter of 26.08.2021 and he made written response... It is record of disciplinary hearing... It states I agreed it was a fair process.
- The Court returns that the reasons for termination were genuine and valid as per section 43 of the Employment Act and were fair per section 45 of the Act... The Court finds that the respondent complied with section 41 of the Act on notice and hearing.