Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E022 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1867 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kericho upheld a tea company employee's dismissal, finding both the procedure and reasons for firing her were fair.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fairness of procedure
Procedure was fair in accordance with Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act: the Grievant was twice issued show-cause letters, responded, attended a disciplinary hearing accompanied by a shop steward, was dismissed and had an unsuccessful appeal.
The Grievant was issued show-cause letters on 4th December 2020 and 31st August 2021, replied to both, and attended a disciplinary hearing on 3rd September 2021 accompanied by a shop steward. She was informed of the dismissal on 13th September 2021 and appealed on 18th September 2021. These steps conformed with the statutory standards of fairness prescribed under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Validity of the reason for termination
The Court was satisfied there was a valid reason: excess paper sacks left the consignment store, suspicious m-pesa transactions existed between the Grievant and Ng'eno, and the Grievant failed to call witnesses to substantiate her maize-business explanation, making her likely an active participant in or negligent enabler of the theft syndicate.
Investigations established that excess paper sacks left the store, some traced to Ng'eno, and that money changed hands between the Grievant and Ng'eno. Her explanations about m-pesa credits were not persuasive, she was inconsistent about handling paper sacks, and she declined to call Ng'eno, her husband, or the friend who allegedly assisted with school fees despite being advised she could call witnesses.
Closure of the earlier conflict-of-interest allegation
The initial 2020 allegation of conflict of interest was closed because no adverse action followed the Grievant's 7th December 2020 response; only the 2021 theft allegation supported the dismissal.
The Respondent appeared satisfied with the Grievant's explanation to the first show-cause letter, as no adverse action was taken on 8th December 2020 when a disciplinary hearing had been expected. The dismissal therefore rested on the second allegation regarding supply of extra paper sacks and the theft syndicate, not the conflict-of-interest allegation.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act, reasons justifying termination are matters the employer at the time of termination genuinely believed to exist and which caused the termination
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Referral of a trade dispute under the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act (dispute conciliated at the Ministry of Labour); Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E022 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1867 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1867/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.