Komen v Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1862 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court ordered a maintenance manager reinstated after finding his dismissal unfair, ruling that getting your job back is not a rare remedy in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal
Dismissal was procedurally fair
The Claimant was issued a letter to show cause, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with the right to bring a witness or shop steward, was heard, minutes were signed by all participants including him, detailed reasons for termination were given, and he was advised of his right of appeal which he pursued unsuccessfully. This met the minimum statutory standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Substantive fairness / valid reason for dismissal
No valid reasons were established; termination was substantively unfair
The Claimant had served 10 years without performance complaints, successfully completed a PIP, and was transferred to a new role and old factory only two months before dismissal. The Respondent gave no material support, the Claimant had no control over procurement of spare parts, the performance-rating standard of 120% as 'good' was preposterous, and the insubordination charge lacked independent merit. He was a scapegoat for the Respondent's failure to modernize.
Remedies - reinstatement as primary remedy
Reinstatement granted, with re-engagement in the alternative
The Court held that reinstatement is a primary remedy in progressive comparative jurisdictions (New Zealand, South Africa, Australia) and that Section 49(4)(d) of the Employment Act should not be applied singularly to suppress the remedy. Factors favouring reinstatement included the Grievant's wish, his lack of contribution to termination, practicability, 10 years of continuous service, permanent and pensionable employment, and failure to secure alternative employment.
Legal principles established
#- Procedural fairness under Section 41 was met where the employee was given notice, hearing, reasons and appeal
- Instructions given by a superior must be reasonable and capable of being obeyed by the supervisee
- Reinstatement is not a rarity to be granted in exceptional circumstances; Section 49(4)(d) must be read contextually with all factors in Section 49(4)
- In the constitutional era there is no such thing as a rare remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract of employment by the Respondent was substantively unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall reinstate the Claimant to the position of maintenance manager without loss of salaries and benefits
- 3.Alternative to reinstatement, the Respondent shall re-engage the Claimant in a position at the same level and remuneration as that of maintenance manager, without loss of salaries and benefits
- 4.Costs to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; Section 12(3) of the E&LRC Act; Article 23 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Komen v Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1862 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1862/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.