Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea (K) Limited -Kilimari Factory (Cause E024 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1879 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled James Finlay's dismissal of a 14-year worker unfair because the employer couldn't prove misconduct and failed to issue a formal disciplinary hearing invitation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
Procedure was largely fair but tainted by the absence of a formal written invitation to the disciplinary hearing; the Grievant was summoned verbally without notice of the charges
The Grievant received a letter to show cause and responded, but was never informed whether his response was satisfactory. He was summoned by word of mouth to a hearing held the same day, with no letter inviting him or communicating the charges. The presence of a shop steward did not cure the default. The Court faulted the Respondent for lack of formal invitation, though the hearing, appeal and conciliation satisfied other procedural requirements.
Substantive justification for termination
The Respondent failed to establish valid reason for dismissal; the allegation of domestic violence was not proved
The dismissal rested on alleged domestic violence against the Grievant's wife. The reporter to security was not identified, the police complainant and outcome unknown, no medical evidence produced, and the wife was not called at the disciplinary hearing. Both parties' accounts were inconsistent. Section 43 of the Employment Act requires the employer to justify termination; the Respondent did not discharge that burden.
Availability of reinstatement and appropriate remedies
Reinstatement was time-barred; the Court adopted the conciliator's recommendation of 6 months' salary compensation and awarded gratuity and notice under the CBA
Four years had elapsed, expiring the reinstatement window under Section 12(3)(vii) of the E&LRC Act. The Court considered the Grievant's 14 years of service, his imperfect disciplinary record (a third warning), his mitigation through alternative work, and the conciliator's findings. Gratuity at 22 days' salary per year was computed under CBA Clause 32, and 2 months' notice under Clause 25(c).
Legal principles established
#- An employer must communicate disciplinary charges and invite the employee formally and in good time to a disciplinary hearing; verbal summoning does not satisfy the requirements of fair procedure
- Under Section 43 of the Employment Act, the burden lies on the employer to establish the reasons justifying termination; where the employer fails to prove the misconduct alleged, dismissal is substantively unfair
- A policy against domestic violence is laudable, but the employer must establish, with evidence, that the alleged violence occurred and breached its policies
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Grievant through the Claimant, gratuity at Kshs. 194,654; notice at Kshs. 32,864; and compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 6 months' salary, at Kshs. 98,592 - total Kshs. 326,110
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest allowed at court rate from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Section 12(3)(vii) invoked on remedies); Employment Act, Section 43 on reasons for termination
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea (K) Limited -Kilimari Factory (Cause E024 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1879 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1879/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.