Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 502 (KLR)

Muchiri v Beiersdorf East Africa Limited (Cause 096 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 502 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,565 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer who changes an employee's job without consulting them and putting the change in writing risks paying millions in constructive dismissal damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Nancy Muchiri (the Claimant) sued Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd (the Respondent) alleging unfair termination, breach of contract and discrimination following her redeployment from Demand and Supply Planner to Customer Service and Logistics Coordinator upon return from maternity leave in October 2021. The Respondent attributed the change to a restructuring project, Africope, begun in March 2021, and asserted consultations. The Claimant contended she was not consulted, in breach of clause 16 of her contract and section 10(5) of the Employment Act, 2007, which require consultation and written notice before varying contractual particulars. The Court held the Respondent produced no formal communication to employees or the Claimant about the restructuring, and the Claimant was only engaged after her return, when informed of a fait accompli. The variation contravened both section 10(5) and clause 16, which required written agreement signed by both parties. Applying the Court of Appeal's tests in Coca-Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Lugaga, the Court concluded the Claimant was constructively dismissed. However, the discrimination claim failed: WhatsApp exchanges showed financial and emotional support during her pregnancy, and organograms showed the restructuring affected various roles without targeted action against her. The Court awarded compensation equivalent to 10 months' gross salary (Kshs 2,512,380/-) considering her 18 years of service, and one month's basic pay in lieu of notice (Kshs 246,952/-), totalling Kshs 2,759,332.50 with interest from the date of judgment. Severance pay was refused as the dismissal was constructive, not redundancy. Costs were awarded to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redeployment was fair and lawful

Holding

The variation contravened section 10(5) of the Employment Act, 2007 and clause 16 of the contract

Reasoning

The Respondent undertook a major restructuring (Africope) but produced no formal communication to employees or to the Claimant about the changes or inviting her views. Engagement occurred only after she returned from maternity leave, presenting a fait accompli. Section 10(5) requires consultation and written notice before varying job description; clause 16 required written agreement signed by both parties. Neither was demonstrated.

p. 3
02

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

Yes - the non-compliant unilateral variation amounted to constructive dismissal

Reasoning

Applying the contractual and unreasonable-conduct tests from Coca-Cola v Lugaga, the Court found the Respondent altered the contract without prior consultation in breach of statute and the contract itself. The alterations were significant and the Claimant saw a demotion. This conduct prompted her resignation, amounting to constructive dismissal.

p. 3
03

Whether the Claimant was discriminated against on account of pregnancy

Holding

No - discrimination was not proved

Reasoning

The Respondent showed it extended financial and emotional support during the Claimant's difficult pregnancy (WhatsApp exchanges) and produced organograms before and after restructuring showing various roles changed without much change in role-holders, demonstrating the restructuring was general and not targeted at the Claimant.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Variation of employment particulars requires consultation with the employee and written notification under section 10(5) of the Employment Act
  • Unilateral and non-compliant variation of an employment contract constitutes constructive dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the Respondent constructively dismissed the Claimant
  2. 2.Finding that discrimination was not proved
  3. 3.Award of compensation of Kshs 2,512,380/- (equivalent of 10 months' gross salary)
  4. 4.Award of pay in lieu of notice of Kshs 246,952/- (basic salary)
  5. 5.Interest on the awards at court rates from the date of judgment
  6. 6.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchiri v Beiersdorf East Africa Limited (Cause 096 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 502 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/502/eng@2025-02-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.