Langat v Uniliver Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E004 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1238 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld Unilever's dismissal of an employee who broke Covid-19 self-isolation rules, but refused to make him pay legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal
The dismissal was procedurally fair; the claimant was issued a notice to show cause, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing where he admitted the charges and apologized.
Section 45(2)(c) requires the employer to prove a fair procedure, and section 41 sets the threshold: explanation of reasons, opportunity to be heard and consideration of representations. The minutes of the 15th December 2020 disciplinary meeting showed the claimant accepted to proceed, admitted the charge and apologized. The court held the burden of proving procedural fairness under section 41 was discharged.
Substantive fairness of the dismissal
The reason for summary dismissal - breaching Covid-19 self-isolation instructions, amounting to gross misconduct under section 44(4)(e) - was valid and fair.
Under sections 43 and 45, the employer bears the burden of proving valid reasons. The claimant, a primary contact of an employee who tested positive, was instructed by text message to work from home and restrict movement while in isolation, and company guidelines emailed to all staff on 17th September 2020 required mandatory self-isolation for 10 days. He admittedly visited a colleague's home on 9th November 2020 without approval and admitted the breach at the disciplinary hearing. Though he acted in good faith and wore a mask, defiance of a lawful command justified dismissal under section 44(4)(e).
Alleged discrimination based on health status contrary to Article 27
No discrimination established; the claimant was dismissed for breach of Covid-19 protocols and insubordination, not for testing positive.
The claimant alleged his dismissal was based on health status contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. However, the pleadings and evidence showed the reason for dismissal was breach of the isolation directive. No evidence was tabled to establish discrimination, so the claim failed. The certificate of service under section 51 was nonetheless ordered.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may summarily dismiss an employee who knowingly defies a lawful and proper command to self-isolate, issued by a person in authority over him, notwithstanding that the employee acted in good faith and observed other health precautions.
- For a termination to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- Discrimination under Article 27 cannot be established where the dismissal was for breach of Covid-19 protocols (insubordination) rather than for health status, absent evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the suit for lack of merits, save for the order for issuance of certificate of service
- 2.Claimant to be issued with a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act
- 3.Claimant not condemned to pay costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) Constitution / Employment Act, 2007 (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat v Uniliver Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E004 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No E004 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1238/eng@2022-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.