Microsoft’s Africa Development Centre in Nairobi is facing fresh scrutiny over allegations that employees were given a stark choice: enter a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) or accept what was presented as a “voluntary” exit.
The allegations have been raised publicly by Kipkorir Arap Kirui, a former Microsoft ADC employee who was himself made redundant by the technology giant in 2023.
Kirui says he spoke to several employees affected by the latest exits and found what he described as a “consistent pattern” emerging toward the end of the third quarter.
According to his account, employees who had performed satisfactorily or better during the first and second quarters were suddenly informed that their performance had fallen below expectations.
They were then allegedly given two options: enter a PIP or leave through a voluntary separation arrangement.
The claims have not been independently established, and Microsoft has not publicly confirmed that the alleged process is taking place at its Nairobi development centre.
But the allegations have landed against a significant legal backdrop in Kenya, where an employer seeking to terminate a worker for poor performance must satisfy statutory requirements and demonstrate that the employee was given a genuine opportunity to improve.
The six-week question
One of the most contentious elements of Kirui’s account is the alleged six-week PIP.
He says employees who opted to contest the performance concerns were given approximately six weeks to demonstrate improvement.
That period, he argues, raises questions about whether the process was genuinely designed to improve performance or whether it could become a mechanism through which an employer builds a record for eventual separation.
Kenyan employment jurisprudence does not prescribe one universal PIP duration for every workplace.
But courts have repeatedly emphasised that an employee accused of poor performance must be informed of the shortcomings, given appropriate support and allowed a reasonable opportunity to improve.
In Jane Samba Mukala v Ol Tukai Lodge Limited, the Employment and Labour Relations Court held that where termination is based on poor performance, the employer must point out the shortcomings and give the employee reasonable time to improve.
In another case, Lukania v Cotes Du Rhone Ltd, the court cited previous authority holding that two to three months could constitute a reasonable period for improvement in the circumstances of that case. That does not establish a statutory minimum of three months, but it demonstrates why the adequacy of a PIP period can become a factual and legal issue.
The courts have also stressed that poor performance cannot simply be asserted.
In Ngendo v Choice Microfinance Bank, the court stated that an employer must investigate the cause of deteriorating performance and demonstrate the measures taken to support an employee, particularly where someone who had previously performed satisfactorily is suddenly said to be performing poorly.
That principle could become important if the Microsoft allegations develop into formal employment disputes.
From good reviews to alleged underperformance
Kirui’s most striking allegation is not simply that workers were placed on PIPs.
It is the alleged timing.
He says some employees had met or exceeded expectations during the first two quarters before being informed in the third quarter that their performance was suddenly inadequate.
That allegation raises a basic question in any performance-management system: what changed, when did it change and was the employee given a documented opportunity to address the alleged shortcomings?
Kenyan courts have previously examined precisely such disputes.
In Pius v Reckitt Benckiser Services Kenya Limited, the Employment and Labour Relations Court considered allegations that a PIP had been introduced in bad faith, involved unrealistic targets and was inconsistent with the employee’s earlier performance record. The court scrutinised whether the employer could demonstrate the basis for the performance assessment and the targets imposed.
In Mwangi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation, the court similarly examined the employer’s performance-management framework and found fault where established appraisal procedures were not followed before adverse action was taken.
The implication is not that Microsoft’s process is unlawful.
Rather, if the allegations are challenged in court, the evidence would likely matter more than the label attached to the process.
Performance records, agreed objectives, appraisal results, PIP documents, emails, coaching records and minutes of review meetings could become critical.
The law does not make a PIP a licence to fire
Kenya’s Employment Act expressly recognises poor performance as a possible ground for termination.
But Section 41 imposes procedural requirements before termination on grounds including poor performance.
An employee must be informed of the reason the employer is considering termination and must be given an opportunity to make representations. The employee is also entitled to have another employee or shop-floor union representative of their choice present during the explanation.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has repeatedly applied that requirement to performance cases.
In Joshua Mwaniki v Andela Kenya Limited, the court found that an employee dismissed for poor performance without the hearing required under Section 41 had been subjected to an unfair procedure. The court also considered the employer’s own requirement for a PIP before termination.
More recently, in Kainika v Lucent Insurance Brokers Limited, the court rejected the argument that poor performance was somehow outside the procedural safeguards applicable to termination. The judge held that an employee facing termination for poor performance must be informed of the reasons and given an opportunity to defend themselves.
That distinction matters.
A PIP itself is not prohibited by Kenyan law.
The question is whether it is being used as a genuine performance-management mechanism, whether its targets are objectively supportable, whether the employee has a reasonable opportunity to improve and whether any eventual termination complies with the law and the employer’s own policies.
The “voluntary” exit dilemma
Kirui’s second major allegation concerns employees who chose separation packages instead of entering the PIP.
He claims some employees were told that draft voluntary-separation agreements could only be shared with their spouses and could not be reviewed independently by an advocate.
That is a serious allegation, but it requires careful distinction.
The existence of a confidentiality clause or an employer request that an agreement not be circulated does not, by itself, establish an unlawful restriction on legal representation.
Nor has a court, on the material reviewed for this report, ruled that Microsoft ADC’s alleged instruction is unlawful.
The more important question is what the actual separation agreements say and what circumstances surrounded their execution.
If an employee is being presented with a choice between accepting a separation package and entering a short PIP carrying the possibility of termination, the circumstances surrounding consent could become relevant in any subsequent dispute.
The precise wording of the agreement, the time allowed to consider it, whether the employee was informed of their rights and whether they were permitted to obtain independent advice would all be matters of evidence.
Microsoft has been restructuring globally
The allegations also emerge as Microsoft continues a major global restructuring.
In July 2026, Microsoft’s Chief People Officer Amy Coleman announced the elimination of about 4,800 roles, representing approximately 2.1 per cent of Microsoft’s global workforce. Microsoft said the changes were intended to align its workforce and investment with changing business priorities. It also said that more than 4,000 employees had been redeployed into new roles during the preceding year.
Microsoft’s latest annual report shows that the company employed approximately 223,000 full-time workers as of June 30, 2026, including 102,000 outside the United States. The company reported strong growth in several businesses, including Azure and other cloud services, while continuing to reorganise parts of its operations.
The global restructuring does not establish that the Nairobi allegations are part of a redundancy exercise.
But it provides important context.
A multinational company can legitimately reorganise its workforce, eliminate roles and change performance expectations.
The Kenyan legal question arises when the stated reason for separation is poor performance rather than redundancy or another legitimate operational ground.
Kirui has been here before
There is another layer to the controversy.
Kirui is not commenting on Microsoft’s employment practices from a distance.
He was one of the Microsoft ADC employees affected by the company’s 2023 layoffs.
Contemporary reporting records that Microsoft was conducting global job cuts in 2023 and that employees at its Nairobi development centre were among those affected. TechCabal reported that Kirui was informed his role had been made redundant.
Kirui himself wrote at the time that the redundancy was not performance-related.
In a May 2023 reflection, he said he had been informed in March that Microsoft had laid him off and described the separation as part of the broader technology-sector layoffs. He again stated that it was not a performance-related decision.
That history gives his current intervention additional context, but it also means his account is that of a former employee with a personal history of redundancy at ADC.
His present allegations therefore require corroboration from current or recently departed employees and documentary evidence before they can be treated as established fact.
ADC remains a major Microsoft engineering hub
The Nairobi centre is not a peripheral Microsoft operation.
Microsoft describes the Africa Development Centre as a major engineering hub building products and services used globally. Its publicly listed engineering functions include identity, Microsoft 365, digital engineering, Windows and Devices, security and developer-related teams.
The centre’s growth was substantial from its launch.
At the 2022 opening of its Nairobi facility, Microsoft said the ADC had already surpassed its original target of 500 engineers and employed about 570 engineers working across areas including identity and network access, mixed reality and Microsoft 365.
Reuters reported in 2024, when Microsoft announced the closure of its Lagos ADC, that the company had more than 500 engineers in Nairobi at the time, underscoring the strategic importance of the Kenyan operation.
That history makes any significant employment restructuring at the Nairobi centre potentially consequential for Kenya’s technology labour market.
The evidence now matters
For Microsoft ADC, the central issue is no longer whether companies are allowed to demand better performance.
They are.
Nor is it whether multinational technology companies can restructure.
They can.
The questions raised by Kirui are narrower and potentially more consequential.
Were employees genuinely underperforming?
Were the alleged performance concerns documented before the PIPs were issued?
What targets were employees required to meet?
Were those targets objectively measurable and achievable?
How were employees assessed during the six-week period?
What coaching, training or resources were provided?
Were employees allowed to respond to the allegations and have representation during any process leading to termination?
And were those who accepted separation packages genuinely making a voluntary decision, with sufficient opportunity to understand the agreements before signing?
Those are questions that can be answered through documents rather than corporate assurances.
The Kenyan courts have already made clear that an employer cannot simply attach the words “poor performance” to an employment decision and expect the label itself to establish fairness. Courts have required employers to demonstrate objective performance standards, appropriate support and procedural fairness.
For Microsoft ADC, the coming scrutiny may therefore turn on the paper trail.
If the PIPs were genuine interventions aimed at helping struggling employees recover, the records should show it.
If they were instead used as a route to predetermined exits, the same records could tell a very different story.
For now, Kirui’s account is an allegation, not a judicial finding.
But in a country where the Employment and Labour Relations Court has repeatedly examined the substance behind performance-based exits, the allegations raise questions that cannot be settled merely by calling the departures “voluntary.”
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
