Omuko v Unilever Kenya Limited (Cause 781 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Unilever Kenya must pay a former employee 12 months' salary because it couldn't prove a valid reason or follow fair dismissal procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent established a valid reason for dismissing the Claimant
No valid reason was established; the allegations were general, no specific loss was assigned to the Claimant, and the omnibus action failed the reasonable responses test
The employer relied on a PriceWaterhouseCoopers investigation report which it withheld from the Court and from the Claimant. The allegations in the show cause letter were general in nature; no specific loss was attributed to the Claimant and no specific duty he failed to perform was identified. The Respondent swooped on every employee who appeared involved, and such omnibus action cannot pass the reasonable responses test codified in Section 43 of the Employment Act.
Whether the dismissal followed due process under Section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedural fairness was violated by withholding the investigation report and by imposing unreasonably short timelines
The Claimant received the show cause notice on 8th March 2017 and was required to respond the following day; he received hearing summons on 15th March for a hearing the next day. The employer also declined to give the Claimant the investigation report on which the charges rested, yet under Section 41 and the Chitavi and Rebecca Ann Maina decisions an employee is entitled to documents needed to prepare a defence. The haste was inexcusable and the process was unfair.
What remedies flow from the unfair termination
Twelve months' salary in compensation awarded; VER dues and general damages disallowed
In exercising discretion under the Employment Act, the Court considered the Claimant's long service of nearly three decades, the finding that he did not contribute to the dismissal, the slim chances of securing alternative employment of equal stature, and the Respondent's mishandling of the case. Twelve months' gross salary was awarded. The VER claim failed for want of evidence of any VER program, and general damages lacked any basis.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove both a valid reason and due process for a dismissal; where it fails to establish a valid reason, the termination is unfair
- Withholding from an employee the investigation report on which the charges are based, combined with unreasonable timelines, violates the procedural fairness requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act
- An employee cannot be deemed to have acquiesced in a defective disciplinary process
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 1,689,393 being 12 months' salary in compensation for unlawful and unfair termination of employment
- 2.The award is subject to statutory deductions
- 3.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Claimant to have the costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omuko v Unilever Kenya Limited (Cause 781 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated May 23, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/275/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.