Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Ekatera Tea Kenya [Formerly] Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1877 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a worker's dismissal for stabbing a colleague, confirming employers can discipline staff even when police decline to prosecute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fairness of the disciplinary procedure
The procedure adopted by the Respondent was fair and compliant with Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Grievant was issued a letter to show cause, replied, was formally invited to a disciplinary hearing, was advised of his right to be accompanied, was heard in the presence of two shop stewards, was allowed to call two witnesses, and a shop steward made representations. He also appealed and was heard, and the dismissal was sustained on appeal.
Validity of the reason for dismissal
Valid reasons under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act were established - the Grievant stabbed and wounded a colleague
Although the workers were drunk, Reginald's account of the assault was elaborate, credible and corroborated by other witness statements. The Grievant later sought forgiveness from Reginald through emissaries, which supported the finding of misconduct. The Court held the employer genuinely believed the Grievant committed gross misconduct by stabbing Reginald above the left eye.
Relationship between criminal process and administrative disciplinary action
The police decision not to prosecute the Grievant was not a bar to the employer's administrative action
The Grievant was not prosecuted by the police, but the Court agreed with the Respondent that administrative action by the employer is independent of criminal prosecution. The employer took its decision on the balance of the internal disciplinary process, in accordance with the minimum statutory fairness standards under Sections 41, 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Remedies
None of the remedies sought were merited as the dismissal was lawful and fair; gratuity was unavailable for under 10 years of service
Having worked only 9 years, the Grievant did not qualify for gratuity under Clause 32 of the CBA, which required 10 years of continuous service. His pay slip indicated NSSF subscription, entitling him to some social security benefit. Since the dismissal was justified, compensation and reinstatement were not merited.
Legal principles established
#- An employer need not secure a criminal conviction, or pursue criminal prosecution to the criminal standard, before taking administrative disciplinary action against an employee; the employer need only act in accordance with the statutory standards of fairness
- A disciplinary procedure compliant with Section 41 of the Employment Act includes a letter to show cause, a reply, a hearing with the right to be accompanied, the right to call witnesses, representations, and a right of appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; trade dispute reported to the Labour Office under the Labour Relations Act after failed conciliation (as narrated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Ekatera Tea Kenya [Formerly] Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1877 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1877/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.