A Nairobi court found that Savannah Brands dismissed Christine Nduta Mbugua over alleged poor performance without a disciplinary hearing. The ruling reinforces that probationary employees cannot be stripped of statutory protections against unfair termination.
A promising new job ended abruptly after barely two months. For Christine Nduta Mbugua, the consequences were immediate, but the legal battle continued.
On October 12, 2026, the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered a significant verdict. It ordered Savannah Brands Company Limited to pay her KSh 1.59 million.
Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa found that the company terminated Mbugua without following mandatory procedures.
The employer also failed to establish that her performance justified the dismissal.
The judgement delivered an important message to employers across Kenya. Probation does not give companies unrestricted powers to dismiss employees.
Abrupt Exit
Mbugua joined Savannah Brands on March 4, 2024, as Trade Marketing Manager.
Her employment contract provided for three months of probation before confirmation.
She earned KSh 220,122 monthly, inclusive of basic salary and allowances.
Her responsibilities included marketing strategy, brand visibility, sales execution and stakeholder management.
However, disagreements over her performance emerged before probation reached its halfway point.
The company maintained that she had failed to meet several performance expectations.
An email dated March 12, 2024, outlined her key performance indicators. These included gross sales targets, trade execution and financial excellence.
By April 16, her supervisor had identified several shortcomings in delivery. The company cited an unrecorded promotional accrual exceeding KSh 700,000.
It also questioned her management of assignments and stakeholder relationships.
The company subsequently communicated additional deliverables for April and May.
Mbugua disputed the assessment, arguing that she needed more time. She maintained that the agreed performance indicators were still being developed.
Then came May 7, 2024, when everything changed. She had been invited to what she understood was a performance review meeting.
Instead, she received a termination letter citing poor performance. She maintained that nobody explained the allegations or invited her response.
The letter provided seven days’ notice under her employment contract.
Her employment consequently ended before completing the probationary period.
The dispute deepened after another communication reached company employees. Mbugua’s supervisor reportedly announced that she had resigned.
She denied resigning and challenged the company’s account of her departure. On May 11, she formally protested the circumstances surrounding her termination.
Missing Evidence
Savannah Brands maintained that Mbugua had received sufficient performance feedback. It argued that her shortcomings justified ending the probationary contract.
However, the company’s evidence encountered difficulties during cross-examination. Its witness, Human Resource Manager Joyce Kamau, joined in February 2025.
That was several months after Mbugua had left the company. Kamau admitted she had never interacted with the former manager.
More significantly, she confirmed that no formal appraisal report existed. She also had no alternative documentation detailing Mbugua’s alleged performance shortcomings.
The company had conducted one review towards April’s end. However, there were no minutes documenting that meeting.
Kamau further admitted that agreed deliverables had never been formally assessed. This weakened the company’s argument that Mbugua had failed her targets.
There was another damaging admission concerning the termination process. The company had neither issued a show-cause letter nor conducted a disciplinary hearing.
Even the exit interview occurred after the termination decision. Kamau confirmed that it was not a disciplinary hearing.
By then, Mbugua’s employment had already been terminated. The evidence exposed serious weaknesses in the employer’s defence.
Probation Defence
The central legal question concerned Section 42(1) of the Employment Act. Savannah Brands argued that probationary contracts enjoyed different termination protections.
However, Mbugua relied on the landmark 2021 decision involving Mount Kenya University.
In Monica Munira Kibuchi & Six Others v Mount Kenya University, the court declared Section 42(1) unconstitutional.
The three-judge bench found that excluding probationary employees violated constitutional protections.
These included Article 41 on fair labour practices and Article 47.
The Court of Appeal subsequently affirmed this position in Red Lands Roses Limited v Mugo [2025] KECA 96.
Savannah Brands nevertheless argued that Section 42 remained in the statute.
Justice Wasilwa rejected the suggestion that its continued existence justified bypassing constitutional safeguards.
At paragraph 99, she delivered the judgement’s most consequential observation:
“No employer can terminate an employee even if on probation without following due process.”
The judge found that Savannah Brands had violated procedural fairness requirements.
She also found insufficient evidence establishing that Mbugua was underperforming.
Under Section 45(2), employers must establish valid reasons and follow fair procedures. The company had failed to satisfy those statutory requirements.
Seven Months
Mbugua had sought 12 months’ salary, amounting to KSh 2,641,464. She also claimed general damages for violating her constitutional rights.
Savannah Brands urged the court to limit compensation to one month’s salary. It argued that her employment had lasted barely two months.
Justice Wasilwa instead considered the abrupt nature of the termination. She also noted that Mbugua had barely settled into her new employment.
READ ALSO: KCB Ordered to Pay Former Manager KSh 7.4 Million for Unfair Termination
The judge awarded seven months’ gross salary as compensation. This amounted to KSh 1,540,854, alongside KSh 51,361 in notice pay.
The combined award consequently reached KSh 1,592,215, less statutory deductions. The company must also pay legal costs and interest at court rates.
Interest runs from October 12, 2026, the judgement’s delivery date.
The ruling reinforces an increasingly important principle in Kenyan employment law.
Probationary employees remain entitled to protection against arbitrary and unfair dismissal.
Employers retain the right to terminate genuinely underperforming employees.
However, they must substantiate their concerns and observe procedural fairness.
For Savannah Brands, the cost of getting that process wrong stands at KSh 1.59 million.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
