British American Tobacco (K) Ltd v Kenyan Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Kucfaw) [2019] KECA 698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that employers only need reasonable grounds, proven on a balance of probabilities, to lawfully dismiss an employee.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Justification of the grievant's dismissal
The dismissal was justified; the grievant's own admissions and the audit supported reasonable grounds for dismissal.
The grievant admitted in a statement dated 15th March 2006 that items had been added to delivery notes and that he personally raised Goods Received Notes in respect thereof, causing the appellant to pay for goods never supplied. As Stores Supervisor and sole custodian of the delivery stamp, he bore overall responsibility. The court found no evidence of duress in recording his statements, and held the employer had reasonable grounds on a balance of probabilities.
Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings
Disciplinary proceedings are not criminal; the standard is the balance of probabilities.
Relying on its earlier decision in Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & Another, the court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings between employer and employee are civil in nature, and the employer need only believe on reasonable grounds, supported by as much investigation as is reasonable, that the employee is guilty. An audit report was not required as conclusive proof since this was not a criminal trial.
Role of a first appellate court
The Court of Appeal on a first appeal must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while making allowance for the trial court's advantage of seeing witnesses.
Citing Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Narcol Aluminium Rolling Mills Ltd, the court restated its duty on a first appeal from the Labour and Employment Court: to evaluate and reconsider the evidence and come to its own independent conclusion, bearing in mind it did not see and hear the witnesses. This framed its re-examination of the justification for dismissal.
Entitlement to salary arrears and leave pay
The grievant retained entitlement to salary arrears for March and April 2006 and leave pay, despite the dismissal being upheld.
Having upheld the dismissal, the court set aside the awards of notice pay and compensation for wrongful dismissal but affirmed the trial court's award of salary arrears of Kshs.40,194.75 and leave pay of Kshs.108,763.40, totalling Kshs.148,958.15, with interest from the date of the trial judgment.
Legal principles established
#- In disciplinary proceedings between an employer and an employee, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; where an employer conducts appropriate investigations and has reasonable grounds for terminating employment, and follows the statutory procedure, the dismissal is not unlawful.
Court orders
#- 1.The award of 3 months' salary in lieu of notice is set aside
- 2.The award of 3 months' salary for wrongful dismissal is set aside
- 3.The grievant is entitled to salary arrears for March and April 2006 in the sum of Kshs.40,194.75 and leave pay for 32.5 days at Kshs.108,763.40, amounting to Kshs.148,958.15
- 4.Interest on Kshs.148,958.15 from 20th December 2012 until payment in full
- 5.Each party bears its own costs
- On appeal from
- Industrial Court of Kenya
- Industrial Cause No. 538 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Industrial Court of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (10)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ogwel v Tourism Regulatory Authority (Cause E467 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2795 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2795 (KLR)16 Oct 2025applied
- Akala v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Cause 1569 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1724 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1724 (KLR)12 Jun 2025applied
- Ndaire v Fast Choice Ltd (Cause 1558 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1646 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1646 (KLR)5 Jun 2025applied
- Koreche v SGS Kenya Limited (Cause 1959 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)22 May 2025followed
- Kawino v Population Services International (PSI) (Cause 2563 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)15 May 2025
- Sirari v British Broadcasting Corporation & 2 others (Cause 287 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1293 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1293 (KLR)8 May 2025
- Ondari v National Hospital Insurance Fund (Civil Appeal 83 of 2019) [2025] KECA 687 (KLR)[2025] KECA 687 (KLR)11 Apr 2025
- Odemba & 7 others v Laico Hotels & Resorts Management Co. Ltd t/a Laico Regency Hotel Nairobi (Cause 930 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)18 Sept 2023
- Manpreet Kaur Luthra v Ideal Ceramics Limited [2021] KEELRC 1383 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1383 (KLR)29 Jun 2021
- Violet Kadala Shitsukane v Kenya Post Savings Bank [2020] KECA 718 (KLR)[2020] KECA 718 (KLR)24 Apr 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "British American Tobacco (K) Ltd v Kenyan Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Kucfaw) [2019] KECA 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/698/eng@2019-06-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.